YEUNG FAI CHIU v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 141
(Criminal)

_____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Liu JA (delivering the judgment of the court):

1. The applicant faced a charge of handling stolen goods. He was charged with the offence of dishonestly handling stolen Toyota Crown private cars together with other persons unknown on 17 March 1991 at the Shui On construction site.

2. At the trial, the applicant elected not to give evidence, and he was duly convicted. He now applies for leave to appeal against conviction. So far as they are relevant, the Grounds of Appeal focus on the applicant's knowledge of and belief that the Toyota Crown cars were stolen. He complains in his Grounds of Appeal that the court could equally have drawn an inference of innocence. He further argues in his Grounds of Appeal that he should have been found not guilty or at least that the verdict of the judge was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

3. In the evening of the date in question, i.e. 17 March 1991, a stolen Toyota Crown was seen by a police surveillance team in the course of being lifted by an excavator, using a strap, onto a waiting speed boat, from a pier at the Shui On construction site, Ma On Shan, New Territories. Another similar stolen car was nearby.

4. The team of police made a search in the formation of what has been described as "beating game". During the search, the police found the applicant hiding inside an iron pipe in the vicinity. Thereupon, the applicant told the police "I just acted as look-out and driver". The trial judge relied on that statement at the scene after the applicant had emerged from the iron pipe. The trial judge further relied on his cautioned statement in which the applicant told the police that a man he knew as Ah Keung contacted him at a motel and asked for his help in loading some goods in the vicinity of Shatin. The applicant promised to help and was picked up by a van driven by Ah Keung with two more males inside. Ah Keung took the applicant to dinner. Over the dinner, Ah Keung asked him to be more alert that evening. In the statement, the applicant also said that the party would be taken by Ah Keung to the location. Ah Keung promised the applicant $2,000 as "a wage" for the job.

5. A little later, the applicant was taken to the Fishermen's New Village in Shatin. There he alighted and went into a store. At one point, Ah Keung said to the applicant: "It is not convenient to load the goods now. We will wait here for the time being". At 1 a.m. in the morning, the following day, Ah Keung asked the applicant to take up his position. The applicant saw no vehicle on that stretch of the road and he contacted Ah Keung by walkie-talkie and told him that the coast was clear. Then the applicant saw one Toyota Crown being driven from the Fishermen's New Village with Ah Keung following behind in his van. The applicant saw the Toyota Crown being driven into the construction site. He walked to the door of a wooden hut inside the construction site "to see if there was any police or police vehicle". After about ten minutes, the applicant heard someone shout: "Run". But he replied: "Don't run, let's wait for a while". Subsequently, the applicant ran and hid himself in a large drain pipe. This was the totality of his statement.

6. The applicant did not give evidence below but told us here that he thought Ah Keung was a legitimate exporter of second-hand cars to the P.R.C.

7. In all the circumstances - the time of the day, the scene of the operation and the role he took after his "promise" to Ah Keung, there was ample evidence for the trial judge to satisfy himself beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant knew the cars which were in the course of being taken out of the territory by the speed boat were stolen and that he was clearly assisting in the removal of these stolen cars.

8. There is nothing in the finding of the trial judge that we can fault. We do not find the verdict returned by the trial judge in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory. None of the Grounds of Appeal, so far as they can be taken as relevant, has any merit. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is therefore denied.