HKSAR v. LEE YORK SING

CACC 531/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 531 OF 2011

(On appeal from District Court Criminal Case No. 955 of 2011)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Line J giving the judgment of the Court,

1.  This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. The conviction occurred in the District Court before Deputy District Judge Woodcock, as she then was, and it was for attempted burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance.

2.  The case for the prosecution was that on 20 June 2011 a report had been made of suspicious activity in a multi-storey residential building; that, accordingly, two police officers quietly walked up the stairs; that when they reached the 4th floor they found two men outside the premises in question, which had been secured with a padlock; that the first man was holding a long pair of bolt cutters and that the padlock was cut; that the second man, the applicant, was acting as lookout with an eye to the stairs, and that he verbally alerted the first man to the arrival of the police.

3.  On the ground outside the premises were a pair of yellow pliers, a black bin liner, a nylon bag, an elasticated rope and a chain link that had been cut and that the applicant had a glove in his pocket.

4.  It was further the prosecution’s case that the applicant admitted under caution at the scene that the tools and glove were for cutting open iron gates to see if anything of value was to be found in the apartment but that he had not taken anything yet and it was also said that in a later interview the applicant admitted his intention to enter the premises as a trespasser to steal.

5.  The defence case was that two men had gone to the roof of the building in order to take dangerous drugs, that having done so they heard police sirens and so decided to leave the building to avoid trouble, and as they walked down they met and were questioned by two police officers, that the officers said they had found some items and bolt cutters were visible there, to which the applicant’s companion responded by saying, “They’re not ours”.  It was said that the police had framed the two men for an offence that they did not commit.

6.  The applicant denied making any admissions and explained that he wrote the declarations and signed the written statement under caution because he was suffering from drug withdrawal and had been promised a trip to a methadone clinic if he co-operated.

7.  The judge found that the admissions were voluntarily made, that the evidence of the police officers was to be trusted and acted upon, that it disclosed an obvious case of attempted burglary, and that the evidence of the applicant and his accomplice concerning their activity and intention towards the premises in question was unworthy of belief.

8.  The applicant was represented by counsel at trial, although he appears unrepresented before us in this application. 

9.  The reasons for verdict reveal that the judge well understood the arguments addressed to her by counsel on behalf of the applicant.  They also reveal how she was able to reach her verdict despite them.  In particular, in this regard, we can fully understand why she did not regard any inaccuracy in the measuring of the length of the tools as being a helpful guide to the credibility of the police officers, why she found nothing sinister in the fact that a mistake had been made as to whether the premises in question were rightly called 4A or 4B, and why, given the nature of the report the police had received, she judged that the police would have arrived with stealth and without sirens hoping to catch and not warn any potential offender.  We can discern no error on the part of the judge.  The case turned entirely upon credibility.  On the available evidence her findings of fact were clearly open to her. 

10.  We have read the many pages submitted to us by the applicant, which go beyond his original grounds of appeal.  We have looked hard on his behalf but we can find nothing in anything that he has written or anything that he has said to us today, which identifies any ground for challenging the verdict.

11.  In the circumstances, the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.