R. v. WONG KWAI-CHUEN

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon. Yang, CJ:

1. This is the applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction He also seeks leave to appeal against sentence out of time.

2. On the 28th November 1991, he was convicted after trial of two counts of robbery. On the following day, he was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

3. The first ground of appeal against conviction is that the learned trial judge missed many important points. The second ground queries what it was that caused the police to delay checking his fingerprints. The third ground is that the judge did not explain to the jury the doubts relating to his palmprints at the scene of the second robbery.

4. The two offences were committed in the early morning of the 18th October 1990 at Hing Yip King's Building, Prince Edward Road, Kowloon. The first robbery took place at Flat B of the 3rd Floor (Flat 3B). The second robbery occurred at Flat B of the 4th Floor (Flat 4B). In the first robbery, an elderly gentleman and his wife were woken up by three intruders wearing masks. They were tied up with nylon strings cut from the curtains. The lady had a knife placed on her cheek. Cash amounting to HK$7,000 and other items, including jewellery, were stolen. In Flat B, US$200, HK$2,000, cameras and various items, including jewellery, were stolen from a husband and wife. They saw two intruders and were tied up. The robbery took place at about 5 a.m.

5. According to expert evidence, the applicant's palmprint was taken from the glass top of a cabinet near the window of Flat 4B. This is the only evidence linking the applicant with that flat. Fingerprints were also lifted at Flat 3B. The applicant's fingerprints were taken upon his arrest at the Waterfront Police Station. The fingerprint expert, Inspector Leung Man-fai, said in evidence that based on the twelve identical ridge characteristics on the two prints, i.e. the palmprints and fingerprints taken from the flats, he came to the conclusion that these prints came from one and the same person, i.e. the applicant.

6. The trial judge dealt with the palmprint and fingerprint evidence in his summing-up in great detail, covering some seven or eight pages.

7. The applicant argued before us this morning that the police could have done something improper in respect of the fingerprints between his release from police custody and his reporting back to the police two weeks later. He also pointed out that the palmprint taken from Flat 3B was damaged. He further argued that there was no fingerprint expert to advise him at the trial. He was however legally represented and these matters were fully canvassed at the hearing.

8. Then he referred to his alibi witnesses, Mr. Wu Wing-hoi and Mr. Liu Chi-lik, and maintained that he was out of Hong Kong and in Shenzhen at the time the robberies were committed. The issue of alibi too was canvassed fully by the judge in his summing-up. There is nothing in any of the applicant's written grounds of appeal or in what he said to us this morning that caused us any doubt about the correctness and safety of the verdicts. There is no substance in this application. It is accordingly refused.

9. The applicant in his application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time contented himself with saying that he did not think of appealing against sentences at the time, and he had been told that an appeal against conviction and an appeal against sentence could be pursued separately. These are not proper reasons upon which leave out of time could be given. In any event, the sentences imposed upon the applicant for the two robberies are, in our view, entirely proper. Leave out of time is therefore refused.