R. v. Lau Sui on

CACC000177/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 177

(Criminal)

___________

___________

Coram: Hon Litton, V-P, Mortimer and Ching, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 8 August 1995

Date of judgment: 8 August 1995

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Litton, V-P, giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant Lau Sui-on was convicted on two charges of theft by Deputy Judge Yung in the District Court and sentenced to a total of 3 years' imprisonment. The conviction and sentence took place on 3 March 1995. The applicant was jointly charged with one Leung Chi-wing (D1) and he was the 2nd defendant on the charge sheet.

2. This court dealt with D1's application for leave to appeal against his conviction by H.H. Judge Jackson last week and we dismissed that application.

3. The reason why this applicant was tried separately from D1 is this : The thefts occurred on 1 and 2 March 1993 when containers, on consecutive days, were stolen from the Sealand Container Terminal by the production of forged papers. On 3 March, the day after the second theft took place, D1 was arrested but this applicant was nowhere to be found by the police. He was eventually arrested on 16 July 1994, over a year later. On being cautioned as to his right to remain silent the applicant made a full confession of guilt. He said he was promised a reward of $50,000 per container by a person called "Lok Chai" and D1 was to get $100,000. This was then elaborated upon in a further statement made by him under caution.

4. The grounds of appeal lodged by the applicant seek to impeach the judge's findings that the statements were voluntary and admissible in evidence. Those were findings of fact, based upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and heard by the judge. No reasons have been advanced why this court should interfere with those findings. The application for leave to appeal against conviction must therefore be dismissed.

5. As to the sentences totalling 3 years' imprisonment, the judge neither erred in principle nor were the sentences manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal against sentence must likewise be dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Wesley Wong (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent

Applicant (Lau Sui-on) in person