THE QUEEN v. WONG NGAR LUN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 395 OF 1986

_____________

BETWEEN

___________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Penlington, J.

1. This is an appeal against conviction. The facts were that on the 22nd of March 1986 some young boys had a dispute with the applicant who is aged 14, during the course of which he alleged he was assaulted. As a result of that he went to some other persons, who quite clearly were fellow members of a triad society, and complained to them of the assault. These persons then went back to where he had been and they entered the premises, produced knives and inflicted quite serious wounds on two of the young men there. The only evidence against the applicant, who did not himself go inside the premises, was his own cautioned statement which the judge admitted in evidence and indeed, was undisputed.

2. In the course of that statement, the applicant said that he took these people, one of whom he called his big brother, to the premises. He also was asked to get a taxi to take them away and there was ample evidence which the judge could have accepted that there was a joint enterprise with the intent that some form of assault would take place. However, the applicant was charged with two offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He did not say in his statement that he knew that these other people went to the premises with knives nor is there anything in his statement which we considered sufficient to show beyond doubt that he knew before the assault took place that there was an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. In his statement he said that after the assault took place and he was then aware that knives had been used, he asked one of the assailants "why did he chop with knives". He was scolded by that man, his "big brother" who said that since the applicant told his group to come to hit people, he should not grumble. We feel therefore that while the trial judge has taken a robust approach, there is simply not the evidence required to show the necessary knowledge and intent on the part of the applicant in relation to the charges as laid. We grant leave to appeal, treat the hearing as the appeal and the convictions are quashed and the sentences set aside.