HKSAR v. Sum Ka Leung
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 1062/2002 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 January 2003.
1. The Appellant was charged with criminal intimidation, contrary to sections 24(b)(i) and 27 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The prosecution's case was that on 28 August 2002 at the Yung Fung Shee Polyclinic in Kowloon he threatened Dr Hui Ka Ling, who had been treating him, with injury to the person of Dr Hui's family, with intent to alarm Dr Hui. If he said what Dr Hui alleged that he said, then he undoubtedly threatened Dr Hui as charged, and it would be open to a tribunal of fact to tak
|
HCMA001062/2002 HCMA 1062/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2002 (ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 6446/2002) ____________
____________ Coram: Hon V. Bokhary J in Court Date of Hearing: 3 January 2003 Date of Judgment: 3 January 2003 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.The Appellant was charged with criminal intimidation, contrary to sections 24(b)(i) and 27 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The prosecution's case was that on 28 August 2002 at the Yung Fung Shee Polyclinic in Kowloon he threatened Dr Hui Ka Ling, who had been treating him, with injury to the person of Dr Hui's family, with intent to alarm Dr Hui. If he said what Dr Hui alleged that he said, then he undoubtedly threatened Dr Hui as charged, and it would be open to a tribunal of fact to take the view that the only reasonable inference is that he did so with intent to alarm Dr Hui. 2.The trial Magistrate, P C White Esquire, who convicted the Appellant at the Magistrate's Court at Tsuen Wan on 30 October 2002, felt sure that the Appellant had indeed, despite his denial, threatened Dr Hui with intent as charged. The Magistrate sentenced the Appellant to 6 months' imprisonment. Now the Appellant appeals against conviction and sentence. 3.I have considered with care everything the Appellant has said. The Magistrate saw and heard all the witnesses. This is an advantage which no appellate court has. As to sentence, an appellate court has to recognise that there is a range within which a sentencer can sentence, and cannot interfere if the sentence is properly within that range. 4.There are unusual features in this case but the Magistrate obviously took them into account. In these circumstances, there is no basis on which I can interfere with the Magistrate's decision to convict or as to sentence. So the appeal against conviction and sentence must both be dismissed.
Representation: Appellant in person. Ms Rosaline S Y Leung, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent. |