Fu Chi-keung v. The Attorney-general

HCMA000129/1984

BETWEEN: -

___________

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jones in Court.

Date of hearing: 26th April 1984

Date of delivery of judgment: 26th April 1984

Mr. J. Hingorani (David K.W. Tsang & Co.) for Appellant.

Mr. A. Bruce (Legal Department) for Respondent.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. On the 16th February 1984 the appellant was convicted on three charges of attempted theft, theft and resisting arrest.  In respect of the charges of attempted theft and theft he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on each charge suspended for 18 months to be consecutive, and fined $400 for resisting arrest.

2. The appellant appeals against his convictions.

3. The evidence for the Crown was given by Detective Police Constable 16530, PW1, who said that whilst on patrol in Dundas Street Kowloon on the 17th December 1983 at about 7.50 p.m. he saw the appellant observing the handbags and pockets of passers-by. PW1, followed the appellant to the unction of Dundas Street and Tung Choi Street where he stopped at a hawker's stall which sold cosmetics. The appellant stood behind a lady who was at the stall. He opened the flap of her handbag which she was carrying ever her right shoulder and reached inside with his hand. PW1 announced his identity to the appellant grasped his arm and told him he was under arrest for attempted theft. The appellant broke free and ran off pursued by PW1 who caught him after a short chase. The appellant put up a struggle but was subdued. The appellant admitted that he had stolen a pink purse containing $9.10 that was found in his trousers pocket.

4. The appellant gave evidence that. he was looking to buy some shirts when he was approached by PW1 and another man who took him to a corner where he was accused of stealing. The appellant generally denied the allegations of attempted theft made by PW1. He also claimed that the purse was produced by PW1 at the police station.

5. The thrust of Mr. Hingorani's submission on behalf of the appellant is that no caution was administered by PW1. That by his failure to do so and without this matter having been drawn to the attention of the learned magistrate the magistrate might have considered the case in a different light. However, the object of a caution is to warn a person who is charged or may be charged with an offence that he is not obliged to say anything. In my judgment that situation does not apply in the present case for there was no obligation to administer a caution.

6. This case rested upon the credibility of the police officer and the appellant. The learned magistrate found PW1 to be a reliable witness whereas the appellant was found to be untruthful. In those circumstances the magistrate was wholly justified in his decision. The appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. J. Hingorani (David K.W. Tsang & Co.) for Appellant.

Mr. A. Bruce (Legal Department) for Respondent.