Wong Chi Tat v. The Queen

CACC000385/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 385 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Rigby, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 8th November, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Huggins, J.:

1. The Appellant was charged on a total of eleven charges. They included robbery, indecent assault, assault with intent to rob, possession of an offensive weapon in a public place and assault with intent to prevent his lawful apprehension. He was convicted on all eleven charges and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment between six months and four years. All those sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal is against conviction.

2. All the offences took place in or around Chungking Mansion in Kowloon. The Appellant was alleged to have approached women in the lift or elsewhere in the premises, to have robbed them of their property and in three cases to have taken them to a remote part of the building and there indecently assaulted them. The assailant was alleged to have carried a knife. On the occasion when the Appellant was arrested he was seen by three police officers to be acting in a suspicious manner in Chungking Mansion. They approached him, searched him and found a fruit knife in his possession, He then tried to run away, knocking one of the police officers down in his attempt to escape. He was, however, apprehended by the others and he was then conveyed to a Police Station. While he was in the Police Station one of the women who had been robbed, having learned that a man had been apprehended, went to the Police Station. There she saw the Appellant and immediately identified him as the man who had robbed and assaulted her. Subsequently enquiries were made by the police and the victims of the other offences were identified. In several instances they had not reported the offences to the police. On an identification parade which was held the Appellant was identified by four of the five victims of the robberies, the woman who had identified him in the Police Station being the fifth. After his arrest the Appellant also took the police to the address at which he says he was living, which was the address of his sister. There the police say they found in a jacket, which was identified as the Appellant's, some of the stolen property, including a ring and two watches, one of which the learned judge said was of an unusual character. These objects were identified by three of the victims as being parts of the property stolen from them.

3. The whole of the case turned upon the identification. The Appellant very reasonably objected to having the woman who came to the Police Station as a witness on the identification parade and, as I have said, she was not in fact called on the identification parade. However, there was no doubt about the identification by the other witnesses.

4. The Appellant gave evidence denying that he was involved in these offences and denying that the property was found in his possession. He now contends before us that there was no search warrant to search his promises, but it is clear from the evidence given by the police that he took them there and that the search was made with his consent. The sister was present at the time the police went to the premises. The police evidence was that the appellant took them into a room which he said he occupied, whereas his evidence and that of his sister was that he was not present when the property was found and that the sister was present in the room with the police.

5. The sister gave evidence that she did not see the property discovered, and the case as I understand it has throughout been that the whole case was a frame-up by the police and that these articles were planted on him.

6. As I say, the whole case turned upon whether or not the learned judge believed the evidence of identification. He summarised the evidence with great care and he found that there was no doubt in his mind that the prosecution evidence was true. He gave full consideration to the evidence of the sister but, with expressed reluctance, came to the conclusion that she was not telling the truth.

7. I should have said that there was evidence given by the police that the Accused admitted one of the offences, having said at the Police Station: "I have met [the woman who came there] ten times, there is no need for a parade. I admit robbing her".

8. There was ample evidence to support a conviction if this evidence was believed and the appeal must be dismissed.

8th November, 1972.

Representation: