HKSAR v. Nasir Muhammad
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 175/2021 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 21 September 2021.
1. The defendant faced 2 charges, namely, wounding with intent and criminal intimidation.
|
DCCC 175/2021 [2021] HKDC 1214 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 175 OF 2021 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR VERDICT ________________________ 1.The defendant faced 2 charges, namely, wounding with intent and criminal intimidation. 2.The Prosecution called 5 witnesses and relied on a set of Admitted Facts including a few video clips. The only issue in this case was identification. 3.Briefly, the victim Mr S S TUR (PW1) was attacked at his restaurant by two men, one of whom covered his face with a facial mask and the other one had his head all covered by his upper garment. The relevant medical report of PW1 showed that, suffice it to say, the injuries he suffered amounted legally to a wound on a few areas of his body. 4.The learned Prosecutor fairly conceded that there was no evidence of identification because the only evidence on identification came from Mr M Singh (PW5), who, in essence, expressed in court that he did not remember anything about the case because of lapse of time. 5.This was exceedingly suspicious. 6.The Prosecution confirmed that there was nothing they could do but invited the court to agree that there was a case to answer because the video depictions can show the built, the height, the skin colour and the general features of one of the offenders. 7.That being the case, on the strength of the principles laid down in Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2002) [2003] 1 Cr App R 21, it is incumbent upon the court to consider the quality of the videos and see whether it can form the, prima facie, view that the accused, in the eyes of a properly directed jury, was the attacker. I was of the view that the quality of the clips was good enough for the court to come to the conclusion that this case ought to be considered by the jury. 8.And I announced in court that the Defendant had a case to answer. 9.That said, since all the important facial features of the attackers were covered, deliberately I hasten to add, the Prosecution Case, being taken to its highest, does not satisfy this court beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was one of the attackers. 10.As a result, the defendant is acquitted accordingly.
|