The Queen v. Chiu Kai-yip
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 1459/1983 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The Appellant was convicted on two charges of theft. The offences were alleged to have been committed shortly after 9 a.m. on the morning of Sunday 28th August 1983 on a crowded train of the Kowloon-Canton Railway shortly after it had left the Kowloon Tong Station on its way to the Border. The first charge relates to a red purse (Exh. 1) belonging to Madam Hui Pak Mui (P.W.2) containing $670 in notes and a few coins which was removed from a handbag that was hanging on her shoulder as she stoo
|
HCCC001459/1983 IN.THE SUPREME COURT
BETWEEN
_________ Coram: Baber, J. in court Date: 18th, January 1984 __________ JUDGMENT __________ 1. The Appellant was convicted on two charges of theft. The offences were alleged to have been committed shortly after 9 a.m. on the morning of Sunday 28th August 1983 on a crowded train of the Kowloon-Canton Railway shortly after it had left the Kowloon Tong Station on its way to the Border. The first charge relates to a red purse (Exh. 1) belonging to Madam Hui Pak Mui (P.W.2) containing $670 in notes and a few coins which was removed from a handbag that was hanging on her shoulder as she stood in the train; Madam Hui raised an alarm on discovering her loss; shortly afterwards her purse was found on the floor of the train with only a few coins in it. The second charge relates to a brown wallet (Exh. 2) belonging to Mak Chi Wah (P.W.3) which was removed from the rear pocket of his trousers while he was standing in the same carriage as Madam Hui; Mr. Mak discovered his loss on hearing Madam Hui's alarm; the wallet contained certain cards and some money; it was also found on the floor of the carriage at the same time as Madam Hui's purse was found; it is not clear what if anything had beer removed from it. 2. The Appellant was near to both victims at the time of their loss. No property was found on him that could be identified as having been lost by either victim. In fact the only cash found upon the Appellant was the sum of HK$31. 3. The case against the Appellant on the first charge lay in the grey area between suspicion and proof beyond reasonable doubt. The case against him on the second charge was a good deal weaker being based largely on the theft charged having taken place at virtually the identical time and place as those with which the first charge was concerned. Crown Counsel felt unable to argue in support of either conviction. I have come to the conclusion after somewhat anxious consideration of the evidence that a lurking doubt exists in the case of each conviction and that they are accordingly unsafe. 4. The appeal against conviction on each charge is allowed, the conviction on each charge is quashed and the Appellant is accordingly released.
Representation: Mr. A.J. Corrigan (D.L.A.) for Appellant. Mr. J.O'Mahony for Crown. |