THE QUEEN v. LEUNG YU LING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 1985

_____________

BETWEEN

____________

_________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_________________________

1. On the 10th of October 1985 the appellant was convicted of theft of HK$7,960 and conditionally discharged for two years in the sum of $1,000 and ordered to pay compensation to the victim in the sum of $3,960 and also costs of $400.

2. He appealed to this Court against his conviction and his appeal was heard this morning.

3. Both Counsel found themselves in difficulties before me because of the way the proceedings had been recorded in the Magistrates Court.

4. After the appellant had pleaded riot guilty, the Magistrate recorded the following

5. Exactly what the Magistrate meant by these words could not be agreed by Counsel before me.

6. Thereafter there followed on the record a note of the evidence of the only witness called at the trial.

7. The record shows that hearsay evidence was admitted into evidence and it was impossible looking at the record to determine to what extent the evidence of the witness was based upon his own knowledge and to what extent it was based upon what he was told by somebody else.

8. It appeared that the Magistrate also allowed questions to be put to the witness as to his opinion as to whether the defendant intended to deprive him of the money permanently.

9. So far as the exhibits are concerned, neither Counsel was able to obtain information to enable them to reach agreement as to what had taken place before the Magistrate and the scope and nature of admissions.

10. In all the circumstances, I considered with the agreement of Counsel that the best course was to allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and order a fresh trial de novo before another Magistrate.