HKSAR v. CHEUNG KWOK KAY

HCMA178/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 178 OF 1998

------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. The Defendant was convicted of theft on his own plea by Mr. Geiser at the Tuen Mun Magistrate Court on the 19th January 1998 and sentenced to detention at a Training Centre.

2. The Brief Facts before the Court, to which the Defendant admitted, outlined the circumstances of his theft of $1,500 in cash in the locker room of a Restaurant in Tin Shui Wai on the 7th December 1997.

3. The Defendant's palmprint was also found on the door of the victim's locker and the Defendant had admitted under caution the theft.

4. He now seeks to appeal against his conviction because he says: first of all, he was beaten and told to admit by the police and secondly, although he told his lawyer he was not at the scene of the crime. The lawyer told him to plead guilty because of the palmprint.

5. At the trial, the Defendant was represented by a Duty Lawyer. He was represented by a different Duty Lawyer on the 5th February 1998 when he was sentenced.

6. I have taken into account all that he had said to me this afternoon. I also bear in mind that the Defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge and he had admitted the facts that on both occasions when he appeared before the magistrate, he was represented by different lawyers. Neither of whom indicated that his plea was, in any rate, equivocal. If anybody had put pressure upon him to plead guilty, I have no doubt that he would have told one or both of his lawyers who would have made an application to reverse the plea, or to have advised him earlier not to have pleaded guilty. No such application was made. I also bear in mind that in the Probation Report and in the Training Centre Report which were made available to the magistrate prior to the sentence, the Appellant expressed his guilt in relation to this offence to both of the reporting officers. In the circumstances, there are no grounds for this appeal against conviction and the appeal is dismissed.