The Queen v. Yeung Po Chun

CACC000417/1987

______

Coram: Fuad, Clough, JJ.A. & O'Connor, J.

Date of Hearing: 3 February 1988

Date of Judgment: 3 February 1988

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Fund, J.A. (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1. Yeung Po Chun, who is a young woman aged 18, was convicted of robbery on 17 August last year by Judge Yeung in the District Court and ordered to be detain d in a Training Centre. She seeks leave to appeal against her conviction.

2. On the same day she was acquitted on another charge of blackmailing the victim of the robbery during the same incident.

3. The evidence given by the victim was that on 27 April 1987 he left his place of work to buy some computer components for the company which employed him. He went to a bank and cashed his company's cheque for $3,000 and he had $200 of his own money on him. He decided to go to what I believe is called a "one-woman brothel" in Lockhart Road. He had not been there before.

4. When he arrived there at about 4:15 p. m it was the Applicant who answered the door. After agreement was reached that he would pay $200 for the sexual services he was seeking, he was shown into a room in which there was another woman. He tried to have sexual intercourse with her but due to "some reluctance"on her part, as he put it, he was unsuccessful.

5. While he was still in the room, the Applicant knocked on the door and said that his tine was up. He dressed and went into another room and demanded his money back from the Applicant., she offered him $100 and he insisted on getting back at least $150. The Applicant asked him to follow her into a third room and when he had done so, a man came in. He was Lee Hak Tim who was jointly charged with the Applicant. He is not concerned with this application. Lee first shouted at him and then punched and kicked him. He was further assaulted when he denied having any money on him. As a result he producel his company's $3,000 from his pocket and gave it to Lee handed it over to the Applicant. Lee also asked the victim to show him his wallet. Lee checked its contents and gave it, too, to the Applicant. The Applicant went through the wallet herself and gave it back to the victim, after noting down his identity card number. She kept back some photographs that were in his wallet as well as his E. T. C. card.

6. Lee then demanded more money from the victim Lee told the Applicant to take down the victim's home and office addresses and telephone numbers She obeyed his instructions. The victim was later made to sign an I.O.U. for $10,800.

7. Lee then escorted the victim to a bank to draw the money. When they reached an E.T.C. point in Lockhart Road, the victim inserted his card into the machine but deliberately pressed the wrong buttons so that the card was rejected. He told Lee that the machine was empty and was thereupon taken to another E. T. C. point in Hennessy Road. He pressed the wrong buttons on the second machine too, 'Then he saw policemen passing by, be shouted out "robbery" and Lee was arrested.

8. The victim was very severely beaten up. The most serious of his injuries was a subcapsular hacmatoma of the spleen. He had to spend 5 or 6 days in hospital.

9. The woman with whom the victim bad tried to have sexual. intercourse pas tendered by the prosecution for cross-examination. In cross-examination she denied that she had asked the victim for compensation for having slapped her and pulled her hair. She said she bad left the room implying she did not know what had taken place there between the victim and the others. She also told the Court that she had asked the victim for $200 sore because he had stayed longer with her than he was entitled to for the sum he had paid for her services.

10. The Applicant gave evidence in her defence and called no Witnesses. She confirmed that the victim bad asked for his $200 back. The other girl had alrerady complained that she had been assaulted. She had knocked on the door of the room where Lee, her boyfriend, was sleeping. She asked Lee what she should to but be was too sleepy to offer any suggestions.

11. She then said that when she refused to give the victim back as much as $150, the sum he had demanded, he had threatened to "mess up" the premises. he had then pushed her. Her boyfriend came out of his room and asked her what the trouble was and sha told him. Lee then hit the victim twice. She then asked the victim for his address and telephone number. He gave her his wallet and she took his identity card from it. The other girl then asked her to get compensation for her. She told Lee that the victim would be allowed to leave once she had noted down his particulars She then told Lee to go back to bed which he did.  When the other girl asked for compensation again, the victim gave her (the Applicant) the $3,000 which she handed over to the girl She had heard the victim saying that he had written out an I.O.U. for $7,800 but she had not asked him to do so. The victim had asked the other girl to go with him to get the extra money but she had, said she was too busy. and so the Applicant had asked her boyfriend to accompany the victim, and they had left together.

12. There was evidence that when the police arrived at the premises as a result of the victim's complaint. the Applicant handed over the $3,000 and the photographs taken from him.

13. Lee gave evidence in his defence and said that that afternoon he had been woken up by the Applicant who was his girlfriend. He saw the victim pushing her. When he asked what it was that he wanted. the victim said he wanted his $200 back threatening to "mess up the place" if he did not get it. He got angry and hit the victim twice. The Applicant then said she would take down tie victim's. identity card number before letting him leave had than, gone back to his room to sleep. Later he had been told by the Applicant to go with the victim so that he could draw $200 from the bank to pay for 'overstaying his time by 15 minutes.

14. The learned judge gave full and careful "Reasons for Verdict". After a thorough review of the evidence, he concluded that although he believed that the victim had slapped the girl with whom he had tried to have sexual intercourse, and pulled her hair, he would accept the rest of his evidence. He said:

"The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant and bar boyfriend took the $3,000 from PW1 after he was subjecte to some degree of violence and threat and that they were acting in concert with one another."

15. "Not without some hesitation". the judge added. he felt it necessary to give the Applicant the benefit of the doubt on the blackmail charge.

16. The Applicant has suggested that there were material discrepancies between the evidence of the victim and the other girl who was the second prosecution witness. It is clear that the judge had these matters in his mind but the important point is that the girl was clearly saying that she was not in the room at the material time when the beating up took place and the demands were made. The Applicant also said that the victim had given discrepant evidence about the number of times he had been assaulted. At one time he had said he had been hit about 60 times but, later, only about 30 times.

17. We think that the judge's approach to the evidence and its reasoning cannot be faulted. We find no grounds upon which we could interfere with his decision to accept the evidence upon which he convicted the Applicant. On that evidence she was rightly convicted

18. The application for leave to anneal against the conviction is dismissed.

Representation:

Applicant - in person.

Mr. I.G. Cross (Crown Prosecutor ) for the Crown.