The Queen v. Chan Kin Man

HCMA000246/1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 246 OF 1985

BETWEEN

________

Coram: Hon. Liu J.

Date of Hearing: 12th April 1985

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 12th April 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. You were kept under surveilance by a police officer and you were observed to be touching pockets on two occasions. You were caught away from the Off-Course Betting Centre and brought back to the police station at which you admitted the offence of loitering.

2. All this evidence was given by the police officer and weighed by the learned Magistrate. The leaned Magistrate accepted the evidence of the police officer and he rejected your explanation for the confession that you had made.

3. Today, you have repeated virtually the same evidence as that given before the learned Magistrate. You would appreciate that the learned Magistrate had the advantage of cross-examination and he had an ample opportunity of observing your demeanour and that of the police officer. I do not enjoy that advantage. I have a mere repetition of the evidence given before the learned Magistrate.

4. My duty is to ascertain whether in law and/or on fact the learned Magistrate's findings and conclusions could be faulted and whether there is any other matters that you can bring it to my attention that would cast some lurking doubt, as it were, on the conclusion reached by the trial Magistrate.

5. As I have said you repeated before me virtually the whole of the evidence before the learned Magistrate, and matters in this appeal are confined to just that. I have explained to you the very clear, concise and careful Statement of Findings of the learned Magistrate. There is nothing from what you have said or the records of appeal that warrants the faulting of any part of that Statement of Findings.

6. You may feel slightly disturbed because, as you said, you have no previous convictions of pick-pocketing, but you can rest assured, as it appears on the records of appeal, that all your assertions were carefully examined by the learned Magistrate. I can find nothing lacking in the Statement of Findings of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, your appeal has to be dismissed, and I dismiss it.

Representation:

Mr. J.L. Abbott, Crown Prosecutor, for the Respondent.

Chan Kin Man, Appellant - in person.