|
HCMA000793/2000
HCMA 793/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2000
(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 622/2000)
_______________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
HKSAR |
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
OR CHUNG LAI |
1st Appellant |
|
TANG CHUN PANG |
2nd Appellant |
________________
Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court
Date of Hearing: 22 November 2000
Date of Judgment of 1st Appellant: 22 November 2000
Date of Judgment of 2nd Appellant: 24 November 2000
______________
J U D G M E N T
______________
1. The Appellant, Or Chung-lai, was jointly charged with Tang Chun-pang (who did not appear at the Court today) with one charge of Wounding, contrary to S.19 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. The matter proceeded to trial where both Appellants were represented.
2. The prosecution's case was that two separate groups of workers were working in an industrial building in Tsuen Wan when a dispute arose between them as to the use of the lifts.
3. The Appellant was found by the Magistrate to be the initial aggressor against the victim, who was one of the other group. In the course of the dispute, the Appellant struck and caused a wound on the victim.
4. The matter was canvassed thoroughly at trial; the Magistrate gave a detailed Statement of Findings. He was aware of the difficulty in assessing evidence resulting from this kind of alternation. He understood that the Appellants had clear records and he treated the fact of their clear records appropriately. He noted that the altercation would have caused confusion even amongst honest witnesses.
5. The upshot of the trial was that the Magistrate did not believe the Appellants. He was satisfied from the evidence that the prosecution had shown that the Appellants were not acting in self-defence. He was satisfied that the prosecution had proved that the Appellant had unlawfully and maliciously wounded the victim in this case.
6. In respect of Mr Tang, he was satisfied that he had struck the victim in a manner constituting common assault and found him not guilty of wounding, but guilty of common assault.
7. Today, the Appellant has not advanced any matter that would make me consider that the Magistrate erred in coming to his decision. He simply repeated the account he gave the Magistrate that he was an unwilling participant, that he had been the party attacked and he fought back unwillingly.
8. I am satisfied the Magistrate dealt with this matter properly and the appeal by Mr Or is dismissed.
9. I was informed by Mr Or that Mr Tang was unable to attend Court as he had had to take his grandmother to hospital unexpectedly this morning. Mr Or was asked to tell Mr Tang to contact the Court as to what he proposed to do about his appeal as soon as possible, otherwise it would be dismissed.
|
(C-M Beeson) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Representation:
Mr Paul Ho, SGC, for the DPP
Or Chung-lai, 1st Appellant in person
Tang Chun-Pang, 2nd Appellant in person, absent
Appeal of Tang Chun Pang
10. No approach was made to the Court on the date fixed for Mr Tang's appeal, nor at any time since.
11. Accordingly I treated the appeal as abandoned and dismiss it.
|
(C-M Beeson) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance
24.11.00 |
|