HKSAR v. SUM KA LEUNG

HCMA 1062/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 6446/2002)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was charged with criminal intimidation, contrary to sections 24(b)(i) and 27 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The prosecution's case was that on 28 August 2002 at the Yung Fung Shee Polyclinic in Kowloon he threatened Dr Hui Ka Ling, who had been treating him, with injury to the person of Dr Hui's family, with intent to alarm Dr Hui. If he said what Dr Hui alleged that he said, then he undoubtedly threatened Dr Hui as charged, and it would be open to a tribunal of fact to take the view that the only reasonable inference is that he did so with intent to alarm Dr Hui.

2. The trial Magistrate, P C White Esquire, who convicted the Appellant at the Magistrate's Court at Tsuen Wan on 30 October 2002, felt sure that the Appellant had indeed, despite his denial, threatened Dr Hui with intent as charged. The Magistrate sentenced the Appellant to 6 months' imprisonment. Now the Appellant appeals against conviction and sentence.

3. I have considered with care everything the Appellant has said. The Magistrate saw and heard all the witnesses. This is an advantage which no appellate court has. As to sentence, an appellate court has to recognise that there is a range within which a sentencer can sentence, and cannot interfere if the sentence is properly within that range.

4. There are unusual features in this case but the Magistrate obviously took them into account. In these circumstances, there is no basis on which I can interfere with the Magistrate's decision to convict or as to sentence. So the appeal against conviction and sentence must both be dismissed.