HKSAR v. KONG TIM FAT

HCMA982/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 982 OF 2002

(On appeal from ESCC 1627 of 2002)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant appeared before a magistrate, sitting at Eastern Magistracy, facing two charges : (1) engaging in bookmaking, contrary to section 7(1)(a) of the Gambling Ordinance, Cap. 148; and (2) dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to sections 25(1) and 25(3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted after trial and sentenced to a total of five months' imprisonment, and ordered to pay a fine of $10,000. He appeals against conviction only and appears before me today on bail. He was represented by counsel at his trial and is today unrepresented.

2. In brief, the allegations are that undercover police officers attended the "P" Pub and posed as customers. They suspected that gambling was taking place there on the results of soccer matches. The appellant, it is alleged, was sitting at a computer connected to the internet. He was accessing a site called "Macauslot" and there were a number of different coloured pens and pieces of paper at his side in the bar. The officer watched as he received and made many telephone calls on his mobile phone, jotting down notes as he did so. The computer monitor meanwhile was showing real-time soccer results and the odds for the results of matches.

3. The appellant was arrested and other exhibits were recovered, exhibits such as bank withdrawal slips and pay-in slips, notebooks and a list of named bank account numbers. Later investigation produced bank records which corresponded to a number of the exhibits seized from the appellant. A gambling expert was called who offered explanations of much of what appeared on the exhibits. His evidence was unchallenged. The appellant himself elected not to give evidence nor to call any witnesses.

4. In support of his appeal today, the appellant has said little.

5. In a thorough Statement of Findings the magistrate carefully examined the evidence and made a sensible evaluation of what was before him. He found the witnesses to be honest and reliable witnesses and noted that the appellant had never suggested otherwise. He noted defence counsel's arguments and dealt effectively with them.

6. The difficulty that the appellant faces today is in pointing to any error at his trial, to any injustice he has suffered. He basically, simply tells me that he is not guilty of the offence.

7. I have reviewed all the papers and I am unable to find that any error was convicted. I am required to make such order as is just to decide whether there has been in the Magistrate's Court an error which makes it just that the appeal be allowed, (HKSAR v. Ching Kwok Yin, FACC No.2 of 2000). There has been no error, on the contrary, the magistrate hearing this case has clearly done so, conscientiously and fairly. This appeal is dismissed.

8. The appellant will pay the respondent's cost of this appeal, to be taxed if not agreed. $5,000 bail will be taken towards the respondent's costs, the balance is recoverable as a civil debt.