HKSAR v. TSANG CHUN PO

CACC 369/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 369 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 534/2000)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP:

1. The applicant is charged with one count of robbery in the District Court before Deputy Judge Kelly. He seeks leave to appeal against conviction for robbery.

2. The main evidence against him was fingerprint evidence. His fingerprints were found on a pantyhose packet.

3. The applicant did not give evidence at his trial and accordingly there was no evidence to indicate how the fingerprint could have been on the article in the room in an innocent way.

4. There was sufficient evidence upon which this conviction could be based.

5. In his written application the applicant has not put forward any grounds of appeal.

6. When he appeared before me he did not put forward any explanation or reason why leave should be granted for him to proceed with this application for his appeal against conviction.

7. Leave is accordingly refused. I would however add that if he does decide to proceed with his appeal notwithstanding the fact that leave is being refused one of the courses open to the court is that if the court considers that there is no merit whatever in the appeal, it can order that part or all of the time which the applicant has spent in custody will not count towards the sentence he serves.