HKSAR v. Ko Wing Yee Vanessa

HCMA000251/2000

HCMA 251/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2000

(On Appeal from Kwun Tong Magistracy Case No. KTCC 98 of 2000)

____________

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Chu in Court

Date of Hearing: 25 August 2000

Date of Judgment: 25 August 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant was convicted on 24 February this year in Kwun Tong Magistracy after trial of one charge of theft. The Appellant now appeals against the conviction.

2. The prosecution's case is that the Appellant on 26 December 1999 at Wing On Department Store in Telford Plaza took away 3 pairs of socks, 3 pairs of hooks and 2 wooden cloth hangers without paying for these items. The Appellant at the trial had elected to give evidence. The Appellant did not dispute that she had taken these items without paying for them. Her defence was that she forgot to pay because she was very tired and preoccupied, and was under the erroneous belief that she had paid for the goods. Her evidence is that she was under great pressure at the time as she was in the middle of taking examinations, preparing and submitting a project. The Appellant's account was disbelieved and rejected by the magistrate. The magistrate found the necessary dishonest intent present and convicted her of the offence.

3. The only ground advanced by the Appellant at the appeal is in relation to the magistrate's reason for disbelieving the account given by her at the trial. In both her reasons delivered at the trial and in her statement of finding, the magistrate considered that the Appellant was able to give a detailed and good account of the various details, including minor details of the incident that happened on the day. The magistrate was of the view that her ability to recall with such details the matter that happened on the day is inconsistent with the Appellant's case that she was tired and preoccupied and had no awareness of what happened on that day, including the fact that she had not paid for the items before she left the Department Store. The Appellant complained that this reason given by the magistrate was "contradictory". She explained that she was only trying to recollect and tell as much details as possible when she was giving evidence. She insisted that she was not very alert at the time and she did not commit the offence intentionally.

4. In my view, the reason given by the magistrate is neither unreasonable nor, as the Appellant contends, "contradictory". It is a fair and reasonable conclusion or inference that the magistrate is perfectly entitled to draw. There is no substance in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Thomas Law, DPGC, for Director of Public Prosecutions

The Appellant, in person, present