R. v. Cheung Yuk Chun

HCMA000718/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 718 OF 1996

____________

____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Wong in Court

Date of Hearing: 16 October 1996

Date of Handing Down of Judgment: 29 October 1996

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was convicted after trial before a magistrate of a number of offences. These are: two charges of managing a vice establishment; two charges of living on the earnings of prostitution and one charge of aiding and abetting the unlawful remaining of an illegal immigrant. She was sentenced to a total of two years imprisonment and fined $20,000. The appeal is against conviction only.

2. The facts as found by the magistrate were that at about 6 p.m. on 16 January 1995, PW1, a watch merchant went to the first floor of No. 115 Tai Nam Street to obtain sexual services from a prostitute. He was led into the premises by a man who was D2 at trial and taken to a room one floor above. D2 introduced a prostitute to him and after that PW1 spent about half an hour with the prostitute when he was disturbed by the police raiding party shouting "licence check". PW2 was a police officer acting as an undercover agent to see if the premises were being operated as a vice establishment. He arrived at about 6:50 p.m. and was admitted into the premises on the first floor by D2 and then taken to the second floor where D1, the Appellant, was seated in the sitting room with a male. PW2 had been introduced to a prostitute on the first floor. D2 said to the Appellant that PW2 was a customer. The Appellant pointed to an empty room next to the room occupied by PW1. D2 led PW2 and the prostitute into the room and left. The prostitute asked PW2 to take a shower after having agreed on the price. PW2 went to shower and shortly afterwards he heard shouting of "licence check". He opened the door and saw a team of police officers led by Inspector Lee. The Appellant and D2 were arrested and a bunch of keys were found on the Appellant when she was searched. She told the woman police constable PW3, who guarded her, that the keys were for her premises at 123, Flat 12B Lai Chi Kok Road and led the police party to that address. The doors were opened with the bunch of keys. Inside the premises, the police found a woman lying in bed. The woman was searched by PW3 and found to have no identification papers. She was arrested. PW3 also seized some condoms and KY jelly from this woman's handbag. At the trial, the prosecution produced a certificate from the Director of Immigration to the effect that a person named Lau Yau-lan unlawfully remained in Hong Kong at Flat B, 12th Floor, 123 Lai Chi Kok Road, Mongkok, Kowloon, of which the Appellant was the owner.

3. The Appellant made a statement under caution which amounted to a full confession of the offences with which she was charged. The admissibility of the cautioned statement was vigorously challenged. It was alleged that the Appellant was framed up and the police were lying. Numerous relatives of the Appellant were detained and or summoned to the police station in order to intimidate her and ensure her cooperation. The magistrate rejected her allegations and the evidence given by her and her witnesses. He found the statement voluntary and admissible and attached due weight to it. It is trite law that a judge or magistrate is not obliged to give reasons for his decision on a voir dire, R. v. Chan King Hei and Others Cr. App. No. 358/94 (unreported) and R. v. Ng Kam Chuen Cr. App. No. 87 of 1995 (unreported).

4. Several grounds of appeal were advanced. Suffice to say that none of them have any substance. The magistrate had dealt with the evidence adequately and, in my view, correctly. The female Ah Lan referred to in the Appellant's cautioned statement was clearly the same person Lau Yau-lan named in the certificate of the Director of Immigration. That is the only inference to be drawn and she could not have been anyone else.

5. The appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. Veltro, S.C.C. for Crown.

Mr. M.K. Wong instructed by M/s Cheung, Chan & Chung for the Appellant.