R. v. CHANG FOK HONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 665
(Criminal)

_______________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for robbery and against the sentence of seven years' imprisonment which was imposed on him.

2. This was a lift robbery. PW1 was a lady who was returning to her home at the So Uk Estate at about 8pm in the evening of 12 November 1993. Two men followed her into the lift. One of the men threatened her with a paper cutter and declared a robbery. The other man placed adhesive tape over her mouth and eyes having first removed her spectacles.

3. She was then relieved of her handbag and watch. The men escaped from the lift.

4. According to the evidence of a tax driver who was PW2 two men boarded his taxi outside So Uk Estate. Before doing so he noticed one of the men examining the contents of a handbag. This aroused his suspicions. He took his fares to a destination in Mongkok. After the men alighted he saw some police officers. He acquainted them with his suspicions and took the officers to where he saw the men were.

5. The officers approached the men who attempted to escape. One of the men was the applicant and the other was a man who was D1 at the trial. He failed to attend the trial and the trial proceeded in his absence.

6. Adhesive tape and the victim's Hongkong Bank reference card were found on the applicant. The applicant also made a cautioned statement to the police. In it he admitted being in the lift when the robbery took place. He gave evidence at his trial. He said that when he had entered the lift with the D1 he had not realised that the D1 intended to commit the robbery. He had been taken unaware and he had not participated in it.

7. Perhaps not surprisingly in the light of this evidence Deputy Judge Davies found the case against the applicant had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

8. In his written grounds of appeal the applicant claimed that there was insufficient evidence to prove the case against him and that the police had not cautioned him before he had made his statement. He did not add anything of any great significance before us. He did say that he had been placed at a disadvantage as a result of the non-attendance of his co-defendant at the trial.

9. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we do not think that this would have had any material impact upon the result of the trial. Application for leave to appeal against his conviction is dismissed. So far as the application to appeal against the sentence which was imposed upon him we will invite the applicant to put forward reasons as to why we should entertain the application out of time.

(As no such explanation was forthcoming leave to appeal against sentence out of time was refused.)