R. v. Mui Po Chu

HCMA000380/1997

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 380 OF 1997

________________

________________

Coram: Hon Patrick Chan J. in Court

Date of hearing: 18 June 1997

Date of judgment: 18 June 1997

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. The appellant was convicted after trial of common assault. She was fined $500. She now appeals against conviction.

2. The prosecution's case was this: PW1 was a clerk working in the Supreme Court Building. On 5^th December 1996 at about 4:00 p.m. she was doing some typing work at her desk in Room G128. According to her, all of a sudden, the appellant walked in and swore at her in foul languages. She said that the appellant alleged that she, PW1, always followed her. PW1 then walked over to her senior's desk but the appellant followed and continued to use abusive language at her. At the indication of another senior officer, PW1 went over to sit with another colleague. The appellant then followed her again, swore at her and used both hands to push her several times. According to PW1 she was pushed at her left and right shoulders. Other court staff then shouted at the appellant and ordered her to stop. Eventually the appellant left the room but continued to swear at PW1 on her way out. That was the evidence of PW1. Other officers also gave evidence, they were the staff of the court and they testified to similar effect.

3. The appellant's case was that PW1 and another staff had sat in court or chambers during various hearings before different judges in connection with her civil case against her father over some probate matters. The appellant alleged that they conspired to frame up a case against her. They tried to make a criminal case to ruin her reputation so that Woo J. would rule against her in the civil action. She alleged that it was in fact PW1 and the other court staff who assaulted her on previous occasions and lied against her.

4. There were different grounds of appeal. I asked the appellant to reduce them into writing. There were a few pages called the appellant's paper line of appeal and there were two bundles of exhibits showing previous statements and other documents including the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the civil action. I consider most of them totally irrelevant.

5. Basically the appellant said that there were some conspiracies among court staff and defence counsel representing her father against her so that she would lose her case. She said these court staff were angry and jealous of her education, her appearance and various other matters. The witnesses were lying against her because they were mentally sick. The record of proceedings were not correct. Someone had in fact interfered with the court recording. The learned magistrate should not have believed the prosecution witnesses. She also mentioned that she made a report to the police about these witnesses having assaulted her and conspired against her. They were now under investigation by the ICAC. Unfortunately, the Crown did not prosecute these other witnesses.

6. I do not think I need to go into detail of these grounds. Suffice it to say that they are fascinating and interesting but they clearly show that the appellant is either highly imaginative or paranoiac.

7. The learned magistrate had very patiently listened to the evidence, and assisted the appellant when she was acting in person at the trial. This is quite clear from the notes of proceedings. At the end of the day, the learned magistrate was convinced that it was the appellant who assaulted PW1 by pushing her several times and that she also scolded PW1 and the other court staff. The magistrate was aware that the appellant was under considerable mental pressure because of the civil proceedings. Having looked at all the evidence, he was satisfied that the appellant's evidence was "really preposterous and is not to be believed".

8. Having looked at the transcript and considered the grounds of appeal and the submission of the appellant, I am in entire agreement with the learned magistrate. There is absolutely no merit in this appeal and I would dismiss it.

Representation:

Miss Lily Tse, S.C.C., for Crown

Appellant: Mui Po Chu in person