THE QUEEN v. LEUNG TIT CHEUK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 523 OF 1985

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

BETWEEN

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

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. This is in form an appeal against conviction only.

2. The Appellant LEUNG Tit-cheuk and his alleged victim the complainant LEUNG Mun-wah (the only two persons to give evidence at the Appellant's trial on a charge of making with menaces an unwarranted demand for $500 from the victim)each operated a small transportation business. When a new building was completed each was in the habit of leaving a business card at each unit of the building, pushing part of the card between the front door and the jamb. The prosecution case was that the Appellant on the day stated in the charge 25th January 1985 came with six other men to a place where the complainant was distri-buting his business cards, and alleged that the complainant had removed the Appellant's business cards from the doors of certain new premises and had substituted his own; then, supported by the presence of the other men he assaulted the complainant and forced him against his will by threats of further violence to go with the Appellant and the other men to the complainant's bank and withdraw $500 and pay that sum to the Appellant.

3. In evidence the Appellant claimed that as he arrived at the place where the complainant was distributing his business cards he saw the complainant removing the Appellant's business cards and dropping them on to the ground. The complainant had denied this in evidence. He also denied that he had removed the Appellant's business cards on any previous occasion. The Appellant denied that he had assaulted the complainant or threatened him and alleged that the complainant had admitted that on that and earlier occasions he had removed the Appellant's business cards from the doors where the Appellant had placed them and agreed to go to his bank with the Appellant, withdraw $500 and pay it to the Appellant as agreed compensation, which he did. The Appellant denied in effect that any other persons played any substantial part in his dealings with the complainant on that day and specifically that any other persons went with himself and the complainant to the bank.

4. It is not in dispute that the complainant complained at once to the police, the Appellant was interviewed on February and charged on 19th March 1985.

5. The Magistrate accepted the version of events given by the complainant relying largely as he said on a comparison of the demeanour of the two parties as witnesses. He was fully entitled to do so and consequently to convict the Appellant. The complainant's story appears to me inherently probable. The appeal against conviction is accordingly dismissed.

6. The Magistrate imposed a six month prison sentence suspended for 12 months and in addition a $1,000 fine. Strongly as I dislike the sort of intimidation involved in this case, of which I believe there to be a very large amount in Hong Kong, and much as I believe that people in Hong Kong must learn to pursue such claims as they believe themselves to have against others by established lawful means, inconvenient though they may seem to be on occasions, and not by intimidation, I am of opinion that the sentence passed was unduly severe. The Appellant is a family man of 31 years of age with no previous conviction. Accordingly I give him leave to appeal against sentence out of time and allow that appeal to the extent of setting aside the suspended sentence of imprisonment. The imposition of the fine will stand.