Cheung Chi Chung v. The Queen

CACC000349/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Rigby, C.J., McMullin & Leonard, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 24th August, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Leonard, J. :

1. The applicant in this case was on 25th April 1972 convicted of a charge of assault with intent to rob. He seeks leave to appeal against that conviction, and the sole ground which he advanced was that there was insufficient evidence on which to base the conviction.

2. The applicant was originally charged with two others also bearing the same surname - CHEUNG. The assault with intent to rob allegedly took place at 226, Ma Tau Wei Road, 4th Floor, at the flat of a Mr. WONG Sau-yuen who is aged 51 years. At about 3.10 p.m. on the afternoon of that day, having prepared the occupants for his arrival firstly by going to the premises in the morning and handing over to the wife of the complainant a note in the handwriting of the 2nd accused, and having continued the preparation by telephoning a message to the victim of the assault, the applicant, calling himself Mr. Li, went with the two co-accused to the flat. He gained entry to the flat by handing over a package which he said had come from Mr. Wong's relative in Bangkok and had been given to him by a Mr. Lam for the victim. Mr. Wong then invited the three of them to stay for some refreshments. The two companions of the appellant then went to the toilet - the victim's wife showing them the way. At that time, the applicant and Mr. WONG Sau-yuen were standing on the balcony of the flat. The evidence of Mr. Wong was that when the others left, the appellant immediately produced a knife and further more put his hand to Mr. Wong's mouth to prevent him from shouting. Mr. Wong then snatched the knife and a struggle for its possession followed. Mr. Wong's wife was a woman of considerable presence of mind. Instead of joining in the fight in which she might have been roughly treated by the other two, she went straight to the door, and downstairs for a police officer. She found a police officer speedily and returned with him. The police officer, corroborating her evidence, stated that when he got there he found the applicant struggling with the complainant, Mr. Wong. He found a knife which had been dropped to the floor, and produced it in evidence. Later that evening, the applicant went with the police to the premises at 74, Cheuk Luk Street, where they found the 2nd accused in whose handwriting the note, to which we have referred, was written.

3. The appellant elected to give evidence on oath in the court below. There, he told a version of the events which he has substantially repeated before us. He admitted that he was present on two occasions on the 8th of February, 1972, at the flat in question. He said he was asked to bring a package to the victim by a Mr. Lam; that Mr. Lam had written a note or given him a written note to deliver to Mr. Wong but that note had got dirty and had been nevertheless copied out in its entirety by the 2nd accused; and that he went first to the flat without the package but with the note. Indeed that was what he actually did according to the evidence of Mrs. Wong. It would appear to have been the singularly pointless exercise unless he wished to have a look at the flat before he returned with his friends. The story which he told in the court below did not raise in the mind of the learned trial judge any reasonable doubt as to his innocence, and a careful consideration of the record does not disclose any reason to us why we should differ from the learned trial judge in that respect. The application for leave is accordingly dismissed.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

E. So for Respondent.

(Judgment of the Court delivered by Leonard, J.)