THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PIK-SHAN AND ANOTHER

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. The 4th and 5th Defendants at the trial now apply for leave to appeal against their convictions on a charge of assisting unauthorized entrants to remain in Hong Kong. The Grounds of Appeal which have been substituted by a notice raised the question of corroboration.

2. The judge in his Reasons for Verdict did not mention in any form the fact that the two main witnesses against these two Applicants were themselves the illegal immigrants and were therefore accomplices to the crime alleged. Where a judge sitting alone fails to mention the risk necessarily inherent in accepting the evidence of accomplices the court will always interfere unless there is such cogent corroboration that it is persuaded that, had there been a proper direction, the judge would inevitably have convicted. In this case we are not satisfied that there was such cogent evidence and we think therefore that the applications for leave to appeal must be granted, that the appeals must be allowed and the convictions quashed.

3. We were asked to consider the application of the proviso but we do not think this is a proper case for that application.

4. There was then an application that the Appellants be tried afresh. In relation to the 4th Defendant (the husband) we think that the evidence was of such strength that it would be proper for there to be a re-trial. In relation to his wife, who, as I pointed out in argument, would inevitably be to some extent at least under the influence of her husband, we think the evidence was not so strong and we think that it would not be just to subject her to a re-trial. Therefore, her conviction having been quashed, she is discharged in respect of this offence.

27th November 1984