R. v. Lau Wai Kuen

HCMA000945/1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Magistracy Appeal No. 945 of 1996

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

Coram: The Hon. Mr Justice YEUNG in Court

Date of delivery of judgment: 15 October 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was found guilty of the charge of possession of a false instrument and was fined $3,000 together with costs of $3,000.

2. The appellant was the registered owner of a private car, GG 4299. He was found to be in possession of photocopies of what appears to be four parking labels. The one for which he was found guilty was a photocopy of a car park label purportedly issued by the Shek Kip Mei Police Station on which the car number, GG 4299 and the permit number of 945 and 95 were typed on.

3. Apparently the appellant's brother-in-law was a police officer, and the appellant made photocopies of his brother-in-law's police parking labels.

4. In a cautioned statement, the appellant said he typed the particulars, namely the car number and the permit number on the photocopy of the car park label in question, that is Exhibit P2.

5. The officer who processed parking label applications in Shek Kip Mei Police Station said the copy label in question, that is Exhibit P2, was not issued by the Shek Kip Mei Police Station at all. He said no such label had ever been issued to a car, GG 4299. He also said, in the year of 1995, there were only a total of 138 parking labels issued, and there had never been a permit issued as number 945 of 1995.

6. The appellant gave evidence in connection with the admissibility of his cautioned statement but not on the general issue. He made allegation on the misconduct on the part of the statement taking officer. But his evidence on that aspect was disbelieved by the learned magistrate. The appellant now complained that a cautioned statement, the cautioned statement which was advantageous to him had not been produced. He alleged -- he suggested that there was an earlier cautioned statement which was torn before the incriminating cautioned statement in question came into existence.

7. He also said that at the material time he was not feeling well as he was anxious because there were girls waiting for him in the car. He also said that he feared that he would be beaten up. Such suggestions were entirely rejected by the learned magistrate, and the learned magistrate ruled that the cautioned statement in question should be admitted.

8. There is no reason for this court to alter the finding of the learned magistrate in that regard. He had the chance of seeing and hearing the relevant witnesses in connection with the circumstances in which the cautioned statement came into existence.

9. The appellant also complained that the parking label in question or the photocopy of the parking label in question, is not an official document by its nature, and therefore cannot amount to a document or an instrument. In my view the photocopy of the parking label in question is clearly an instrument within the meaning of the Crimes Ordinance.

10. The learned magistrate in my view was clearly right in his conclusion that this document was a false document when it was purportedly issued by the Shek Kip Mei Police Station to the private car, GG 4299, with the permit number 945, when no such parking label had in fact been issued. It was because it was not properly or officially issued that make the parking -- or the copy parking label in question, false.

11. On the evidence, the appellant was clearly in possession of this false document at the material time. The appellant also clearly knew that it was a false instrument and that he was acting dishonestly.

12. The learned magistrate, in my view, came to a correct decision in convicting the appellant. There is absolutely no merit in this appeal whatsoever. The appeal must be dismissed.

I/we certify that to the best of my ability and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of the tape recording taken of the above proceedings.

..................................
Dated the 22nd day of October 1996

Representation:

LAU Wai-kuen, in person

Miss Denise CHAN, Crown Counsel for the Crown