HKSAR v. Chan Chi Sun

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 611
(Criminal)

-------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant was charged with two counts of robbery. He pleaded not guilty to these offences. After a trial before Kilgour, D.J., he was acquitted on the first count and convicted on the second. He now seeks leave to appeal against this conviction.

2. It was a simple taxi robbery. The taxi driver who was PW2 in the trial below gave evidence of picking up a man at about 11:30 in the morning of 20th May 1997. When the taxi reached Kat Hing Garden near Yuen Long, the man instructed PW2 to stop. There was some delay in paying the fare. PW2 became suspicious and turned around. He saw the man was holding a knife and demanded that he handed over his takings. PW2 gave the man a HK$100 note. The man was not satisfied with this and demanded more money. PW2 gave him another hundred dollars which was made up by five HK$20 notes. The man then left the taxi.

3. PW2 immediately reported the matter to the police. A search ensued. PW2 saw the man who had robbed him nearby. He informed the police officers who were with him. They went across and questioned the man who was in fact the Applicant. He denied having been involved in any robbery. He had on him a HK$100 note and four HK$20 notes.

4. At the trial the judge was satisfied with the identification having reminded himself of the Turnbull directions.

5. The Applicant gave evidence at his trial and called his mother as a witness. He placed reliance upon an alibi. He claimed that he had been sleeping at home. His mother confirmed this. The judge did not consider either the Applicant or his mother to be truthful and reliable witnesses and he was satisfied that the prosecution had disapproved the alibi. He then went on to convict the Applicant as charged.

6. In his grounds of appeal the Applicant claimed that he had been wearing different clothes to the ones which had been described by PW2. The judge was aware of this claim and dealt with it in his Reasons for Verdict. In the first place he was not satisfied that the clothes were different and even if they were the Applicant lived nearby and in the time available could have changed his clothes. He also referred to the difference in the money found on him and the money allegedly stolen from PW2.

7. Before us the Applicant claimed that the trial judge was biased and that there were irregularities in the trial. However, he gave no sensible justification for these allegations. The judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing them. There is no reason to believe that the judge was in error in reaching the conclusion he did. This conviction was in no way unsafe or unsatisfactory and the application is dismissed.