Wong Kai-kin v. The Queen

CACC000243/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 243 OF 1970

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

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

Coram: Mills-Owens J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 16 June 1970

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The facts of this case as recorded were as follows:

"          The deft. is a friend of C/M SZETO Kin Leung who in turn is a friend of C/M AU Hon Man. On 20.3.70 C/M AU Hon Man had to attend Kwun Tong Magistrate's Court in answer to a traffic offence Case No.9775. C/M AU Hon Man was charged with A) Using a private car to carry passengers for hire or reward B) Driving without 3rd Party Insurance and C) Driving whilst under disqualification.

The case was heard by Mr. P. Flannery, the magistrate at 12.00 hrs. on 20/3/70. C/M AU Hon Man did not attend court to answer the charges. Instead, through the arrange-ment of C/M SZETO Kin Leung, the deft. (WONG Kai Kin) appeared before the magistrate and answered the charges in the name of AU Hon Man.

The findings of the case were $1,050 to cover the 3 charges or in lieu of payment 2 months imprisonment. As the deft. did not pay the fine of $1,050, he was put in the court cell.

The deft. was searched by Cp1.3747 in the cell. Cp1.3747 found a personal identity card in the name of WONG Kai Kin, and discovered that the photograph of the holder resembled the deft. Under interrogation, the deft. confessed that his real name is WONG Kai Kin and alleged that he was forced to answer the 3 traffic offences for AU Hon Man.

CID/KT were informed and asked to make investigation. CID/KT failed to locate AU Hon Kin or SZETO Kin Leung at their address.

DPC 6502 of CID/KT finally arrested and cautioned the deft. in CID/KT. The deft. admitted the offence."

2. The appellant is a man aged 22 years and has one previous conviction for a disimilar offence, viz possession of dangerous drugs for which he was bound over last December. The charge, in respect of which he now appeals against a sentence of 7 months imprisonment, was framed as acknowledging the judgment in the traffic case in the name of another contrary to section 5 of the False Personation Ordinance (Cap.207). The section seems to be of very doubtful application to the facts of this case. However he appeals only against sentence.

3. He now says that he simply appeared in the traffic case on behalf of the real defendant AU Hon Man; the facts as recorded state that he said he was forced to do so. It is difficult to perceive what advantage he was to obtain by what he did and, as it seems to me, this is a case where the motive or intention of the appellant remains in the realm of speculation. Added to that is the dubious nature of the charge.

4. In these circumstances I allow the appeal against sentence substituting a conditional discharge in the sum of $300 for 1 year, without a conviction being recorded.

Representation:

Astin C.C. for Crown.

Appellant in person.

Oral judgment reduced into writing.