LAU CHUEN MING v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 255
(Criminal)

_______________

______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mortimer, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court): The applicant was convicted on 17th May 1994 of two counts of rape on his daughter. She was then aged 15 years. For those offences he was sentenced to six years imprisonment on each count concurrent.

2. The facts can be stated briefly. The offences took place at the family home. In October 1992, the victim's mother was away. On the excuse that he was going to examine her, the applicant made her undress on the threat of a beating. He had sexual intercourse with her. She was too frightened to tell anyone but she left home. That was the first offence.

3. The second offence took place on 11th March 1993. The victim had then returned home. The applicant told her to go into a room to watch television. Again, under threats of a beating, he told her to undress and he had sexual intercourse with her. Again, the girl did not report the matter but she left home. Some nine days later she told the lady - whom she regarded her as her foster parent and with whom she was staying - about what had happened.

4. At trial, the applicant denied the offences. He suggested that the victim had fabricated the accounts because of the poor relationship which she had with him; because she had been humiliated by him in public when he had slapped her face; because she had stayed away from home and her behaviour was generally unsatisfactory; and also because he had admitted that she was not well cared for at home by him.

5. The applicant now seeks leave to advance before the Court a number of matters to persuade the Court that his conviction should be quashed. These can be summarised. First, that the judge was unfair in his summing-up to the jury in that he failed to deal properly with the defence case and failed to indicate to the jury properly the reasons relied upon by him for the victim lying about the two incidents complained of. Also the judge failed to direct the jury properly about the admissibility of a complaint, and failed to direct the jury properly about the danger of convicting the applicant on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim. Finally, that the judge, in reminding the jury about the evidence, failed to deal adequately with the conflicts of evidence about the "slapping" incident.

6. It suffices to say that a reading of the whole of the judge's summing-up shows that there is no basis for any of these criticisms. The issues were simple to state if not simple to decide. The judge left those issues plainly and fairly to the jury. There was no challenge to the admissibility of the complaint and the judge directed the jury properly upon how they should approach it. He also directed the jury adequately and properly upon the danger of convicting the applicant on the uncorroborated evidence of his daughter. Finally, he dealt with the conflicts of the evidence in a perfectly fair and adequate manner. There is no basis upon which this Court can give leave on the matters that have been advanced to appeal against this conviction. The application is refused.