HKSAR v. Ng Hung Yam

CACC000233/1997

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 233
(Criminal)

______________

______________

Coram : Power, V-P, Mortimer, V-P and Mayo, J.A. in Court

Date of Judgment : 15 October 1997

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Mortimer, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 14 April 1997 in the then Supreme Court before Deputy Judge Hartmann and a jury the applicant was convicted of an offence of blackmail and sentenced to 7 1/2 years.

The facts

2. On 29 July 1996 the applicant telephoned the well-known company, Vitasoy, and threatened that unless they paid him $20m he would put drugs in the drinks they had for sale.

3. Phone calls which the applicant made to that company were recorded. Eventually one was traced with such speed that the person making the call was arrested at the telephone from which the call originated. The person arrested was the applicant. After arrest the applicant was interviewed on video-tape. He admitted the offence. Later he took officers to the places from which, he said, calls had been made.

At trial

4. At trial he denied being the culprit. He said he had been arrested in error and that the police had extracted confessions by threats, making him learn a script from which he could give a video interview.

5. He was represented by counsel at trial. He now seeks leave to appeal against his inevitable conviction.

6. Although the document which he puts in does not qualify as a notice, he now raises one point. He says that the judge should not have had admitted into evidence the audio recordings of the telephone conversations. The reason is that the jury would hear the voice on those recordings and would be able to also listen to the recorded voice of the applicant on the video interview - no doubt also hear his voice when giving evidence. There is nothing in this point. The tapes were the best evidence. They were obviously admissible. There was nothing unfair in admitting them into evidence and indeed the jury were warned not to set themselves as experts in order to match the voices.

7. The application is totally without merit and is refused.

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr Arthur Luk (SADPP) (DPP) for Respondent