THE QUEEN v. YUEN CHUN-CHEUNG

______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against convictions on charges of burglary and resisting police officers in the due execution of their duty.

2. The case arose out of the riots which took place earlier this year in Kowloon. The evidence given against the Applicants was believed by the judge and on examination it is apparently sufficient to justify the convictions, but it has now transpired that camera-men of a television station were operating in the area at the time and took pictures of at least part of the events covered by the evidence. The contention is that these tapes are strong evidence that the 2nd Defendant was not arrested at the time and place that the police say he was and, on the other hand, support his own evidence as to when and where he was arrested. It is then argued that, if the evidence of the police against the 2nd Defendant was wrong, that casts grave doubt upon the reliability of their evidence against the 3rd Defendant, and we are asked to hear the camera-men ,to view the film again and, if necessary, to hear other witnesses.

3. We say straight away we do not think that it is appropriate that we should hear any further evidence. We have seen the film once. It is a difficult film to analyse and obviously needs very careful examination and detailed evidence as to how and when it was taken; and I would say here, as we are proposing to order a new trial, that we think it would be desirable that a copy of this tape should be made available to the police photographers so that some still pictures could be produced of relevant frames. Quite clearly in our view the evidence that is available now is such that it might well have had an effect upon the verdict against the 2nd Defendant. We express no concluded view one way or the other as to whether it does support the 2nd Defendant's case in the end but we think that it would be wrong that this matter should be left as it is without a full investigation, and we think there is some substance in the contention that if the evidence now available shows the innocence of the 2nd Defendant - or casts doubts upon his guilt - it might affect the verdict which would have been returned against the 3rd Defendant.

4. For these reasons we shall allow the application, quash the conviction, set aside the sentences and direct that there be a new trial in the District Court.

6th December 1984