HKSAR v. Wong Sau Tim

HCMA 14/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. hcma 14 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 6407/2004)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

Before: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 6 April 2005

Date of Judgment: 6 April 2005

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1.The Appellant was convicted in the Magistracy of one charge of Conspiracy to Publish Obscene Articles.  The articles were 2,000 discs determined by the Obscene Articles Tribunal to be obscene.

2.After trial, at which the Appellant was represented and gave evidence, the Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to 9 months’ imprisonment.  Initially, the Appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence, but he applied today to abandon his appeal against sentence. 

3.The facts as found by the Magistrate were simple.  The police arrived at the entrance to a commercial centre; the Appellant was heard shouting out that there were “sze chai” at the 4/F.  A man approached the Appellant and asked him where the ‘sze chai’ were sold.  The Appellant told him to take the lift to the 4/F and look for Room B6.  The police officer (PW3) who heard this approached the Appellant declared his identity and arrested him.  Under caution, the Appellant denied any involvement.  The Appellant gave evidence that he was a painter by occupation.  He had been shopping that night at the commercial centre and came across a friend who asked him where he could buy “sze chai”.  

4.In those circumstances, he told his friend there was a shop in unit B6 on the 4/F.  The Appellant said he had been there to have a look himself just half an hour previously, but had not bought any discs.  He denied having any connection with the shop. 

5.The Magistrate assessed the evidence, and convicted the Appellant.  He relied principally on the evidence of PW3 and directed himself in respect of that evidence, particularly as to identification. 

6.The Appellant relied on the general grounds of appeal.  He supplemented these by suggesting he had been wrongly accused.  He pointed out that no discs were found on him but advanced no other grounds that indicated the conviction was unsafe.

7.Having considered the charge, the facts of the case and the Magistrate’s Statement of Findings I can see no reason to disturb this conviction.  Accordingly, the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Mr David Leung, SGC of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Wong Sau-tim, Appellant in person