R. v. CHU YING

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1612 OF 1994

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

_____________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

1. The appellant was charged with stealing a can of Mackerel Fillets from the Wellcome Supermarket. She pleaded not guilty but was convicted after trial and now appeals against that conviction.

2. The brief facts were that the appellant was seen to take down a can of fish from the shelf and put it inside the top of her trousers. She was also holding a can of coke and went to the cashier, paid for the coke and left the premises. She was stopped. The can of fish was found and she was arrested and charged.

3. The appellant did not dispute at the trial that the can of fish had been put inside the top of her trousers. The defence being that this was an oversight on her part and a genuine mistake.

4. There was evidence that the appellant is an extremely hardworking person and medical evidence was produced to confirm the fact that she had been working long hours and was feeling the strain. The magistrate dealt very carefully with all of the evidence that had been presented and came to the decision that the appellant was guilty. There was also in evidence a statement taken under caution from the appellant in which she admitted to having taken the can of fish. She did claim in that statement that there was no intent on her part to steal.

5. It is not surprising on the evidence that the magistrate had before him that he came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty. I can find nothing in the very carefully prepared submission of Mr Chan who appears for the appellant that would entitle me to interfere with that decision and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.