The Queen v. Ng Kin Kwan

CACC000027/1996

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

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

Coram: Hon. Yang CJ, Liu JA & Sears J in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 May, 1996

Date of Judgment: 14 May, 1996

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

JUDGMENT

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

Liu JA:

1. The applicant initially applied for leave to appeal against his conviction as well as his sentence. He abandoned his application for leave appeal against his conviction and his application was thereupon dismissed.

2. As for his application for leave to appeal against his sentence, he sets out in his written home-made grounds that he did not carry the paper-cutter at the time of the attempted robbery. He drew attention to the fact that the paper-cutter was found some 50m away in a flowerbed, on which no fingerprints of his were found. He therefore complains that the sentence is "too heavy".

3. The case against the applicant was based on the evidence of the victim and police officers. The victim was grabbed by the applicant in Tai Chung Kiu Road, Shatin on 27 July last year. The judge described her as a good witness who was able, in the commotion, to identify the paper-cutter held by the applicant at her neck. Of the two police officers who testified, one was not able to give further assistance on the paper-cutter, but the other saw the applicant holding the paper-cutter against the neck of the female victim. At the scene, both the victim and this police officer saw the applicant throw away the paper-cutter which was later retrieved. The case against the applicant was virtually a cast-iron one. He was found guilty of attempted robbery as charged with the aid of the paper-cutter held at the victim's neck. There is no substance in the two features drawn by the applicant to our attention in his home-made written grounds of appeal, that is to say the paper-cutter was found some distance away from the scene of the attempted robbery with no fingerprints of the applicant on it.

4. The application for leave to appeal against his sentence of five years, which has not been shown to be either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, is therefore dismissed.

Representation:

Mr D G Saw, S.A.C.P. of Crown Prosecutor for the Respondent

NG Kin-kwan, applicant in person