HKSAR v. LAN NAM

CACC206/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 206 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 118 OF 1999)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 31st March 1999, the Applicant (D2) was convicted of handling stolen goods following a trial before Deputy Judge Duggan in the District Court. He had earlier admitted a further charge of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong. For each offence, the Applicant was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment to be served consecutively. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction.

2. The facts could not be more straightforward. The Applicant was found hiding with two others (D1 and D3) under a lorry in Tsuen Wan. In his possession, the Applicant was found to have a black bag strapped to his waist. There were other items on him as well. Amongst the items found in the Applicant's possession were the stolen goods listed in the charge that he faced which were:

"one gold necklace and two watches, the property of Chan Wai-lin; one purse, the property of Lo Yee-mui; one purse, the property of Wong Ping-wah; two watches, one brooch and one ball pen, the property of Wong Kam-tim; one ball pen, the property of Wong Ka-po; and one handbag, the property of Wong Ka-pui; knowing or believing the same to be stolen goods."

3. These items were stolen in residential burglaries. The articles were of significant value and were stolen, as the judge found, within one or two days of the Applicant's arrest. The items were the subject of questioning several hours later when the Applicant allegedly made admissions which led the judge to find:

"The overwhelming inference to be drawn from the admitted circumstances of acquisition is that D2 knew or believed the goods were stolen and that he dishonestly received the goods. I also refer to the nature of the goods and the circumstances in which the defendant was found with the goods."

4. The Applicant, as was his right, called no evidence on his own behalf on the general issue in the trial although it was the thrust of his case that the bag containing the stolen articles was never in his possession. There was also a trial of the special issue concerning the admissibility of the interviews which the judge ruled were plainly made voluntarily. On that aspect of the case, the Applicant did give evidence and his testimony was not accepted by the judge.

5. This Applicant now seeks to go behind the findings of the judge which were, it seems to us, fairly and properly reached on the evidence before him. The Applicant continues to deny the offence. He criticises the quality of the evidence given by some of the police officers, and it is clear from what he has said in court today that he wishes this case to be tried all over again. The application is devoid of all merit and is utterly misconceived. These proceedings are not a retrial. We have, however, had the benefit of looking at the findings made by the trial judge and there is no reason disclosed to us as to why we should interfere with those findings.

6. Accordingly, the application is dismissed and we shall order that three months of the time the Applicant has spent in custody shall not count towards his sentence.