R. v. CHAN CHI SING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 444
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Bokhary, J.A.:

1. This case comes to us from a trial before HH Judge Surman in the District Court.

2. The applicant, a man in his early 40's, was tried on a charge sheet containing three charges: the 1st charge of robbery; the 2nd charge of theft; and the 3rd charge also of theft.

3. On June 12 last year, the applicant was convicted as charged on all three charges.

4. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction.

5. The particulars of each charge are as follows.

6. For the 1st charge, they read:

" CHAN Chi-sing, on a day unknown in December, 1994, at a room on the 8th Floor, Block 7, Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, together with TANG Wing-wah robbed an unknown person of a gold necklace and $600 Hong Kong currency."

7. For the 2nd charge, they read:

" CHAN Chi-sing, on the 3rd day of February, 1995, on the 10th floor staircase between Block 6 and 7, Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, stole 7 red packets containing cash $70 Hong Kong currency, the property of an unknown person."

8. And for the 3rd charge, they read:

" CHAN Chi-sing, on the 8th day of February, 1995, at Jordan Valley North Road near Choi Ha Road, Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, stole one wallet containing cash $270 Hong Kong currency, the property of an unknown person."

9. The case against the applicant depended on his admissions to the police.

10. Those admissions are contained in the signed record of an interview of the applicant by Police Constable 45188 Cheng Siu-pang at Ngau Tau Kok Police Station from 14.40 to 19.30 on February 4, 1995.

11. The grounds of appeal urged by the applicant include a number of general complaints of no substance.

12. Two specific complaints made by the applicant are these.

13. First, he says that since the offences with which he was charged were reported: (i) the victims should have been named in the charges rather than being referred to as unknown persons; and (ii) they should have been called as prosecution witnesses.

14. The short answer to that is this. That could have been done. But it did not have to be. The prosecution were entitled to rely on his admissions alone, which did not give the victims' names. It is true that they could have specified in the 1st charge the precise date of the offence charged thereunder even if going only by his admissions to the police, since he mentions the date in his statement. But, in the circumstances, greater particularity than "a date unknown in December 1994" was unnecessary and therefore immaterial.

15. Secondly, the applicant relies on the acquittal, in a separate case, of Mr Tang Wing-wah of the same offence as the one charged in the 1st charge, a robbery by this applicant and Mr Tang together.

16. To that complaint too there is a short answer. The acquittal of one alleged perpetrator of an offence does not of itself entitle the other one to an acquittal if the evidence against them is different. The classic situation of that kind arises in relation to where there is an admission. Here there was.

17. In those circumstances, the application for leave to appeal against conviction must be dismissed; and it is.