HKSAR v. LEE CHUNG CHAK

HCMA 22/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 22 OF 1999

(On Appeal From SKC 3080/1998)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant appeals today against his conviction in respect of the charge of Theft, a shoplifting for which he was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment in the magistracy.

2. The Appellant appeared today unrepresented. It appears he made an application for legal aid in respect of this appeal but that was refused by the Director of Legal Aid on 14th January 1999. I advised Appellant that legal aid had been refused and he said that he wished to withdraw the appeal. However, when it was explained that he could represent himself, he decided to do so and the court read out the Magistrate's Statement of Findings. Appellant then advised the court of the matters that he considered made his conviction unsafe.

3. The Appellant submitted that the towel, which was one of the items allegedly stolen, was not taken by him and that the main prosecution witness, the Assistant Manager of the supermarket, did not, or could not, have seen him taking the towel. He said he had met the 2nd Defendant by chance and that he had not left the shop with him with the stolen items. He admitted he had entered the supermarket and bought one can of milk powder and some tissues, but said that after that he left the shop alone.

4. The Appellant submitted that the Magistrate had made some observations about the demeanour of the prosecution witnesses in accepting their evidence and he found that to be too subjective a proceeding on the part of the Magistrate. There was no reference to demeanour in the Magistrate's findings, or in the transcript, and I informed Appellant of that. There were no other grounds advanced by the Appellant. As the Appellant was unrepresented in this case, I read the transcript carefully and I also noted the Magistrate's Statement of Findings. There was ample evidence before the Magistrate on which he could find this Appellant guilty of the offence with which he was charged.

5. Appellant was not represented at the hearing by the Duty Lawyer Scheme but the Magistrate explained his rights throughout. He exercised his right not to give evidence himself, but did call the 2nd Defendant who pleaded guilty. The Magistrate did not believe the 2nd Defendant's account of events and accepted in full the evidence given by the supermarket manager.

6. I cannot fault the Magistrate's reasons for conviction. This appeal against conviction is dismissed.