Chan Moon Wai v. The Queen

CACC000384/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 384 OF 1972

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

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

Date of Judgment: 15th August, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Rigby, C.J.: The appellant was convicted in the district court on a charge of robbery preferred against him. The incident occurred at what is euphemistically described as "an apartment house" in Parkes Street in Yaumati. It occurred between 11 and 12 o'clock at night on the evening of the 16th December. At that time 2 room boys were in this so-called apartment house on the first floor of these premises. One room boy was in what was referred to as room 205, cleaning up that room which had recently been vacated by a couple. The other room boy was at the counter at the entrance to these premises. According to the evidence of the room boy at the counter, two youths came into the premises and asked if he had accommodation for four persons. He said that their rooms were only for two persons per room, whereupon one of the youths produced a knife and pushed him into the room - Room 205 - in which the other room boy was at that time. This youth then asked him to hand over the keys of the premises and enquired if there were any other occupants in the apartment house at that time. He said that there was only one other person resident there. At the time that person was in room 201. Thereupon the Chinese youth compelled him to lead him along the corridor and to knock at room 201. The door of room 201 was opened by the occupant, a man named WONG Kwan Lau, whereupon the Chinese youth pushed the room boy into the room and then compelled WONG Kwan Lau, who was then in a state of undress, to empty the contents of his pockets and put them on the bed, and he then took $50 in currency notes which WONG Kwan Lau had deposited on the bed. Thereupon the Chinese youth compelled WONG Kwan Lau and the room boy to go out of the room, led them along the corridor and pushed them into the room the other room boy was then occupying. The accomplice of the Chinese youth was in the room with the other room boy at the time.

2. Now, it would appear that whilst this was going on three police officers on plain clothes duty in the street saw a Chinese youth acting in what they considered a suspicious manner. He was at the entrance of these premises on the ground floor and was apparently looking up and down the street. The police officers suspected that there might be something wrong, whereupon they approached the premises, and the Chinese youth ran inside. They then entered the premises and as they did so, two Chinese youths ran down the stairs and escaped in the street.

3. According to the evidence of one of these police officers who entered the premises, after he had approached close to the counter in the hall or lobby, he saw a Chinese youth with a knife in his hand escorting two persons along the corridor. One of them was in front of him and the Chinese youth was pointing the knife at him; the other was beside him. He called out, "I am a police officer," but the Chinese youth apparently took no notice and pushed the two persons who were with him into a room off the corridor and shut the door. This Chinese youth, still with a knife in his hand, then approached the police constable. The police constable called out to him to drop the knife but he did not do so and apparently advanced towards the police constable brandishing the knife in a threatening manner. The police constable, according to his evidence, then again warned him to drop the knife, but when he did not do so, since he, the constable, was in fear of imminent attack he shot him. He shot him, in fact, in the stomach. The youth kneeled against the wall holding his stomach, and then the constable saw another Chinese youth come out of one of the rooms in the corridor and escape. It would seem clear from the evidence that this Chinese youth was the one who had been with the other room boy. In escaping, the Chinese youth apparently pushed the police officer aside, and then the wounded youth also, apparently, made good his escape from the premises.

4. Some hours later that same night, on a staircase in Shun Wo Street, Kun Tong, the police were called to the scene and there they found a Chinese youth shot through the stomach. The police constable later identified this Chinese youth, and identified him at the trial as the man whom he had seen threatening the two persons in the corridor and the man who had advanced towards him brandishing a knife in a threatening position, and the man whom he had shot. It is right to say that neither the two room boys nor WONG Kwan Lau were able to identify the Chinese youth who threatened them and who had taken the money from WONG Kwan Lau. The evidence of identification therefore, rested entirely upon the testimony of the police officer. The appellant, who was legally represented at this trial, did not go into the witness box and did not give any evidence. He made, therefore, no attempt to contradict the identification by the police constable.

5. Clearly, the evidence of what had taken place on these premises coupled with the evidence of the police officer identifying the appellant as the man whom he saw threatening WONG Kwan Lau and the room boy who was with him and whom he subsequently shot, raised a very strong inference that the appellant was, in fact, the man who had robbed WONG Kwan Lau of his money, as averred in the charge. In our view, particularly bearing in mind that the appellant made no attempt to give evidence or to explain the circumstances in which he was shot, there was ample evidence to support the conviction. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is accordingly dismissed.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Duckett, S.C.C. for Crown/Respondent.

(Judgment delivered by President)