R. v. Tong Bing Lau

CACC000023/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No.23
(Criminal)

-------------------------------

Coram: Hon. Power, Ag. C.J., Mortimer and Mayo, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 29 May 1996

Date of Judgment: 29 May 1996

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Power, Ag. C.J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant in this matter faced one charge of wounding with intent. It was particularised that on 13th June 1990 at Wing Lee Mah-jong School, 31 Un Chau Street, Shamshuipo, he unlawfully and maliciously wounded Chu Chun-ming, with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm.

2. The facts were that at 11:30p.m. on the day in question the victim was attacked by a group of male persons which included, according to his evidence, the applicant. These persons were armed with beef knives. They chased the victim and inflicted appalling wounds upon his body. When he screamed for help the police and an ambulance were called. He was transferred to hospital and admitted in shock as a result of haemorrhaging from the chop wounds inflicted on his chin, back, upper and lower limbs. The injuries included a complete amputation of his right middle finger, the severance of the radial nerve and lacerations of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles. Following the attack the applicant's name was circulated by the police but he was not seen again until he surrendered after having returned from China on 4th February 1995.

3. It was the applicant's evidence that the attack occurred because he had been advising an acquaintance, a Thai prostitute, not to repay a loan. He said that the defendant took a lead in the chopping and encouraged the others saying "It's he, chop him up."

4. The trial judge found the victim to be an honest and reliable witness who had given an accurate identification of the applicant. He noted that the applicant did not give any evidence but he dealt properly with that saying that that was the applicant's right and privilege and that it did not prove anything one way or the other. Having canvassed the evidence he said:

"I have looked over all of that evidence and find that there is nothing in the defence case to raise any reasonable doubt in my mind on the prosecution case. I therefore convict as charged."

5. The applicant today complains of a failure by the judge to give proper consideration to the evidence which he says was weak and incredible. He complains particularly of the failure, as he suggests, of the judge to take into account the evidence of the workers in the mahjong school who said that the attackers were young men which he, because of his age, was not. The judge did, however, have that evidence in mind but it did not in any way shake him as regards his preparedness to accept the evidence of the victim. Far from failing to give proper consideration to the evidence we are satisfied that he examined all that he heard with care. The evidence, given that the victim was truthful, was compelling. The applicant has said nothing today which in any way causes us concern as to the propriety of the findings of the judge and the correctness of the conviction.

6. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

7. The applicant also sought leave to appeal against the sentence of seven years but he has not today pursued that application and, indeed, had he done so his application must have been rejected as the sentence was, given the severity of the attack and the dreadful injuries inflicted, one which was well within the proper range.

Representation:

Applicant in person.

Mr. J. Reading (Crown Prosecutor) for the Respondent.