HKSAR v. CHAN KIN LUNG AND ANOTHER

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 673

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. Both applicants were convicted after a trial before HH Judge Whaley of blackmail and claiming to be members of a triad society. They now seek leave to appeal against their conviction.

2. It was the prosecution case that both men approached the site supervisor at a construction site at Siu Lam and demanded 'Lai See'. The supervisor said that he would have to consult his superiors. He took a name and pager number from A1. After they left he made a report to the police. An undercover police officer posing as the superior telephoned the number given and suggested a meeting when the matter might be discussed.

3. Both applicants attended at the meeting. They made a demand for $54,000 as protection money. A1 did most of the talking but A2 specifically indicated that if payment was not forthcoming they had better be careful. Also A1 said that they were 'Lo Sun' which it was agreed meant that they were members of the Sun Yee On Triad Society if that statement had been made.

4. The men were then arrested by police officers who were standing by.

5. Neither applicant gave evidence in their defence. Judge Whaley found the prosecution witnesses to be truthful and reliable and found the charges laid proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. In their grounds of appeal both applicants made very generalised complaint that the lawyer representing them did not do his best for them.

7. Before us A1 claimed that the prosecution could not produce any exhibit. A2 complained that the identification evidence was unsatisfactory. There is no merit whatever in any of these grounds. There was overwhelming evidence against these men. The convictions were in no way unsafe or unsatisfactory and these applications are dismissed.