Chan Cheuk Wai v. The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 1973

________________________

________________________

Coram: Huggins, McMullin & Pickering, JJ.

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Huggins, J.:

1.  The Appellant appeals against his conviction for assault with intent to rob. Although he admits that he was involved in an incident with a woman, yet he says it was not of the nature which she alleges. His story is that she brushed past him, that he objected, that then they separated and that thereafter some other people came and attacked him.

2.  The victim of the alleged assault says that she felt a blow on her back as she was walking along the pavement. As she was then near the Southorn Playground she thought she must have been hit by a ball but when she turned round she saw that the Appellant was just behind her and from his position she deduced that he had hit her. Indeed, she says that he then kicked her in the chest. When she asked what was the matter he abused her and tried to snatch her handbag. He again kicked her on the hand but failed to take the handbag. She says that he then went away, that three persons came up to her and asked what had happened and that they then went after the attacker. Two of those three persons gave evidence. The elder one, a Government messenger, said that he saw a man and a woman struggling and he had the impression that the man was trying to snatch her handbag. According to him the man used his hand to hit the woman on the back and her face, which does not coincide with what the woman said. He said that after the struggle the woman remained there and the man walked away: the witness approached the woman and spoke to her and, as a result, he and the young men with him followed the robber: on approaching this man, who was the Appellant, the young man asked whether he had snatched anything from anybody and the Appellant said it was none of his business: the Appellant forced the young man to the ground and then the witness struggled with the Appellant and he was arrested. The young man gave similar evidence, saying that the man put out his hand and tried to snatch the handbag which the woman was holding. He also saw the man strike the woman with his hand.

3.  The learned judge was satisfied that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses was true and it was ample evidence upon which to found a conviction. On considering the whole of the evidence we see no reason to believe that he came to a wrong conclusion.

4.This application is dismissed.

4th May 1973.