R. v. Chan Lam

CACC000100/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 100
(Criminal)

___________

___________

Coram: Hon. Nazareth, V.-P., Bokhary, J.A. and Saied, J.

Date of hearing: 31 May 1995

Date of judgment: 31 May 1995

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Nazareth, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant was charged before His Honour Judge Caird in the District Court on four counts. He pleaded guilty to the 1st count of landing unlawfully and remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration. We are not concerned here with that charge.

2. He pleaded not guilty to three other counts. The 2nd count was that on 18th December 1993 at Lion Rock Tunnel, near the Tin Win Estate footbridge in Shatin, he had in his possession an offensive weapon, namely, a dining knife with intent to use it for an unlawful purpose.

3. The 3rd charge was one of robbery in that on 15th December 1993 at that same footbridge at Sun Tin Wai Estate, he robbed Yu Wing-yee of HK$300, US$10 and a coin purse.

4. The 4th count was also of robbery. That on the same day, 15th December 1993, at a bus-stop on Lion Rock Tunnel Road, near the Sun Tin Wai Estate, he robbed Lau Suk-yue of a brown leather covered notebook, HK$700, two ATM Chung Nam Bank cards, one Moneylink Standard Chartered Bank card, one OTB Bank card and a Bank of Communications card and one Sony Walkman. All but one of these cards were in the name of Lau Suk-yue.

5. The victims and the arresting policemen gave evidence. The applicant was represented below by counsel, although before us he appears in person. His defence below, which he renews before us, was one of alibi. His alibi is that at the material time he was detained in Tsung Shing City Reception Centre in Guangdong. However, he did not call any evidence in support of that defence and relied merely on his own evidence. Before us, he has suggested that the Commissioner of Correctional Services should have obtained the evidence from the security view in Guangdong. In that context, his counsel submitted to the judge below that the onus did not lie on him to call evidence. However that may be, the judge looked at all the evidence before him, that of the applicant, that of the victims and of the police officers, and believed them that the applicant was here in Hong Kong.

6. The applicant has also suggested to us that the police showed photographs to the witnesses before they identified him. There is no mention of this in the record although the applicant says that he told the judge of that at the trial below. I find nothing in this point.

7. In his somewhat discursive judgment, the judge dealt with all the matters raised before him, in particular, with the matter of identification. Having regard to the totality of the evidence, he found the applicant guilty of the three offences, i.e. on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th counts. He was entitled to make that finding.

8. Furthermore, we find nothing in the grounds advanced by the applicant to us. His application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Casewell (Crown Prosecutor) for Respondent

Applicant in person