The Queen v. Leung Ying Tuen

HCMA000002/1992

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 1992

_____________

BETWEEN

_________________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Sears in Court

Date of Hearing: 24 January 1992

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 24 January 1992

______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is an appeal by Leung Ying Tuen against his conviction at the Kwun Tong Magistrate's Court of using an identity card relating to another person contrary to section 7A of the Registration of Persons Ordinance.

2. The facts in this case are very unusual. At about 5 o'clock in the morning, the police stopped a vehicle carrying a number of persons and the driver had his driver's licence checked; it was found that his driving licence had expired. The other two persons had their identity cards checked. It is said that the appellant handed over an identity card in someone else's name called Tang Chi Kong. When a check was made on the police console, it was found that the person was wanted; he said perhaps he owed sums parking lines. The photograph with I.D. card presumably did not correspond to that of the appellant. When he got back to the police station, he was asked to produce his driving licence which he did, and the driving licence produced was in his own name. The person in the front seat apparently produced an indentity card in the appellant's name. As I have said it was very unusual and there was no obvious motive. The facts of this case did require very careful examination to see really whether there was the offence committed with the necessary guilty intent. The magistrate at page 19, recorded that at the police station when the driving licence was handed over in his correct name, the name on it was lies. That was an important binding because it may well have been the factor which persuaded the magistrate on the standard of proof, that the case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

3. However as Mr. McNamara has pointed out when the evidence is analysed, it is clear that that did not occur. In my judgment, that is a serious matter which may well have caused the magistrate to come to the conclusion he did. In all the circumstances of this case, there is in my judgment a reasonable doubt, and that doubt should be reflected in the defendant's favour. The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.

Representation:

Miss Raverscoft for the Crown.

Mr. John McNamara (M/s So & Co.) for the Appellant.