LEE CHUN WAH v. HKSAR

FAMC No. 22 of 1999

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 22 OF1999 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM HCMA NO. 245 OF 1999)

_____________________

_____________________

______________________________

DETERMINATION

______________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1. This applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the High Court's refusal to quash his conviction in the Magistrate's Court on a charge of common assault.

2. The applicant was on the Housing Department's waiting list for less congested accommodation. He was dissatisfied with the time it was taking to provide him with such accommodation. On the day in question he was at the Housing Department's offices at Wong Tai Sin Estate pressing for quicker progress in the matter. And there was an incident at those offices between him and a Madam Wong of that department.

3. It was the prosecution's case that the incident involved an assault by the applicant on Madam Wong. He denied assaulting her.

4. Madam Wong and a Mr Lam who was a colleague of hers gave evidence for the prosecution. They said that the applicant verbally abused Madam Wong, poked her on the chest with his index finger several times, and had to be restrained by other colleagues of theirs.

5. The applicant gave evidence in his own defence. He admitted verbally abusing Madam Wong but denied any physical contact with her.

6. Having seen and heard all the witnesses, the Magistrate felt sure that Madam Wong and Mr Lam's evidence was accurate, that the applicant's evidence was not accurate, and that the applicant had indeed assaulted Madam Wong as she and Mr Lam had said. Accordingly the Magistrate convicted the applicant of common assault as charged and fined him $3,000.

7. The matter went on appeal to the High Court. In the High Court, the judge felt unable in all the circumstances to disturb the view of the facts taken by the Magistrate. The Magistrate of course had the advantage, which no appellate court would have, of seeing and hearing the witnesses at first-hand.

8. The applicant continues to proclaim his own innocence. And we have considered what he has said. But we see no reasonable prospect of the Court of Final Appeal taking a view different from the view taken by the High Court.

9. Leave to appeal is refused.