HKSAR v. Yuen Sau Kwan
Read the full judgment text of CACC 348/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 July 2001.
1. On 28 July 1999, the applicant was convicted before Judge Whaley in the District Court of one charge of burglary, one charge of resisting a police officer in due execution of his duty and before the same judge he pleaded guilty to one charge of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the respective offences totalling 3 years and 3 months.
|
CACC000348/2000 CACC 348/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2000 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 512 OF 1999)
Coram: Hon Wong JA, Woo JA and Cheung J in Court Date of Hearing: 4 July 2001 Date of Judgment: 4 July 2001 __________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ Wong JA (giving the judgment of the court) : 1.On 28 July 1999, the applicant was convicted before Judge Whaley in the District Court of one charge of burglary, one charge of resisting a police officer in due execution of his duty and before the same judge he pleaded guilty to one charge of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the respective offences totalling 3 years and 3 months. 2.He applied for leave to appeal against conviction out of time after a lapse of a long period. His application was dismissed by Stuart Moore VP sitting as a single judge on 2 March 2001. On 15 March 2001, he gave notice to renew his application to this court for leave. In some letters he wrote to this court, he complained that he had been assaulted by the police after he was arrested and denied that he committed the offence of burglary or resisted arrest by the police. 3.These matters were already before the trial judge and were carefully dealt with by him. The decision of the judge was one of finding of facts. There is no reason for this court to interfere. Stuart Moore VP dismissed the application on 2 March 2001 after a full review of all the relevant matters. He was fully satisfied that there was no merit. Having perused the record of the trial and all the papers connected with this case, we are driven to the same conclusion that the application is completely devoid of any merit. We dismiss the application and further direct that 3 months of the time that the applicant has spent in custody will not be counted as part of his sentence.
Representation: Mr. P. K. Madigan, S.G.C., of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Applicant in person |