THE QUEEN v. TSANG HIN-CHOI

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Kempster, J.A.:

1. On 13th June of this year at Kowloon District Court TSANG Hin-choi was convicted by His Honour Judge Wilson on two charges - one of blackmail and the other of resisting a police officer in the due execution of his duty.

2. The learned judge in giving his Reasons for Verdict described the evidence of the victim of the blackmail, a hawker, who had said that four men, one of whom was the applicant, had approached him and demanded $69,000. The victim had said that these men grabbed his clothing and threatened to stab him and a struggle ensued. Happily, it appears that a number of police officers came to the scene just as the victim was telephoning for help and challenged the four men; three of whom including the applicant were caught. The police officers described how the applicant struggled with them before he was subdued. In his Reasons the learned judge describes the evidence given by the applicant himself which was that he and two of the other men who were apprehended had been having tea together and that his friends became involved in an argument and a struggle with the victim in which he, the applicant, had no part. The applicant told the judge that he in no way resisted the police. But having seen and heard the witnesses the learned judge accepted the account of the matter given by the victim and the police in preference to the account given by the applicant and was accordingly satisfied so that he was sure that the two charges were proved.

3. By his written grounds of appeal and by what he has said to us this morning it is apparent that the applicant does not fully understand the function of this Court. It is not for us to retry the case. It is for us to be satisfied before we can allow the application that there was some fault in the way the trial judge approached his task. Unless we are shown some ground so to do we cannot accept the applicant's invitation to overrule the evidence of the police constable and quash the conviction for resisting arrest.

4. Having considered all the written and oral submissions we find that there are no grounds to grant the application and it is dismissed.