R. v. WONG PO-CHUN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 740 OF 1996

_____________

_____________

_____________

J U D G M E N T

_____________

1. This Appellant was convicted on 31st May 1996, following a trial before Mr. Michael Chan sitting at the Tsuen Wan Magistrates' Court. The Appellant was fined $2,000 and ordered to pay $1,000 costs on a single charge of common assault. He now appeals against that conviction on the ground that the complainant's evidence was totally wrong, that the complainant's evidence in court conflicted with his statement made to the police, and that because his lawyer had only recently been instructed as a replacement for the original lawyer, the case was not properly presented.

2. The learned Magistrate found that the complainant, a taxi driver, had been an honest witness. The driver had picked up the Appellant at about 2:30 a.m. on 6th April 1996, in Mongkok. Putting it very shortly, the Appellant was not very clear about the exact place that he wished to be dropped and, when the driver asked for more detail, the Appellant allegedly punched the driver on the back of the head and appeared to be about to make off without paying the fare.

3. The learned Magistrate did not believe the Appellant's version which was that the driver had driven the Appellant to the wrong places. He also did not believe that the Appellant got out of the taxi to buy water from a Seven-Eleven Store, having first of all tapped, as the Appellant put it, the driver on the shoulder. On the other hand the learned Magistrate did believe the taxi driver's version.

4. I have also had the opportunity of reading through all the evidence which was heard in the Magistrates' Court and, having looked at it, I find that it would have been very surprising if Mr. Chan could have reached any other decision. I say that because the Appellant's behaviour appears to have been wholly unreasonable. One thing which the Appellant did agree and admit in court was that he had been spitting in the taxi, but he denied being drunk. I notice that when the Appellant opened the taxi door, he opened the door right into the path of another taxi which caused an accident. Not only the complainant but the other taxi driver thought that the Appellant seemed to be drunk. That was confirmed to some extent by the arresting officer who found the Appellant partially incoherent and smelling of drink.

5. The Magistrate had seen all the witnesses and his review of the evidence took into account all that he had heard. There is nothing in the point made by this Appellant that the taxi driver's statement compared to his evidence in court showed differences of any importance. Such differences as there were, had little or no materiality. I do not accept that the lawyer had failed to represent this Appellant properly. This appeal must be dismissed.