The Queen v. Chan Yiu-ming

CACC001497/1983

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

BETWEEN:

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date: 23rd December, 1983

____________

JUDGMENT

____________

1. The defendant was convicted of two charges of theft. The first alleged that, on 12th September, 1983, he stole a gold necklace from Miss TAM Kam-lin, and the second that on 27th August, 1983, he stole a gold necklace from Miss YEUNG Lai-yung.

2. The Crown case depended solely on the identification of the defendant, in each case by the victim and by a police officer. The evidence on the first charge consisted primarily of identification by a police officer, D.P.C. 2653, who was in the area in plain clothes at the time of the theft.

3. The magistrate reached the conclusion that the quality of identification of this police officer was good and that he had an opportunity to see the defendant, not only while the theft took place but also for some while after, when he chased him.

4. The same officer identified and arrested the defendant entering a pawn shop about three hours later. He also made a dock identification of him; as the man he had arrested in the shop and the man he had seen snatching the necklace from Miss Tam.

5. The magistrate regarded the evidence of the victim as supportive, since she accepted that she only had a fleeting glance, although she identified the defendant at an identification parade which took place within 24 hours of the theft.

6. On the second charge, the magistrate relied primarily on the evidence of the victim, Miss YEUNG, who testified that she had got a clear view of the defendant that she was never in any doubt at all, during the identification parade which took place almost three weeks' after the theft, that the defendant was the robber.

7. The magistrate described her as an "absolutely first rate witness", clear, concise and reliable, and found the quality of her identification to be good.

8. Her evidence was supported by that of P.C. 23109, who was on duty at the time and had been following two men whom he thought had been acting suspiciously. He saw the theft take place and chased one of those who had taken part in the theft for a considerable distance, before losing him. This officer subsequently identified the defendant in the police station on 12th September, when the defendant was arrested in relation to the first charge.

9. The magistrate directed himself with great care as to the law which applies to identification in general terms and to identification of suspects in the dock.

10. I can find no fault with his direction in law nor in his application to it of the facts. These he examined with great care and with the dangers of identification clearly in his mind. In my view this was a strong case. The identification on each charge was firm and I see no ground on which I could properly interfere with the magistrate's findings.

11. I would like to suggest that magistrates should record the evidence in the first person. It is easier to read and understand; and there are occasions when it is important to know the actual words used by a witness.

12. The appeal against conviction on both charges is therefore dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. Zia Reshid Bey Muftyzade (S.T. Poon & Co.) for Appellant.

Mr. Fleming, Crown Counsel, for Respondent.