The Queen v. Chong Chun Lung and Another

CACC000459/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 459
Criminal)

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

Coram: Hon Bokhary, J.A., Mayo and Ching, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 23 February 1996

Date of judgment: 23 February 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicants seek leave to appeal against their convictions of five counts of controlling a woman for the purpose of prostitution, living on the earnings of prostitution and aiding and abetting an illegal immigrant to remain in Hong Kong. They were each of them sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment to run concurrently on the charges of controlling women, 8 months' imprisonment on the charges of living on the earnings of prostitution and 12 months' imprisonment for the aiding and abetting charges. The sentences for the different offences were ordered to run consecutively thus making a total sentence for each applicant of three years' imprisonment.

2. The facts were comparatively simple. Five young women gave evidence of being approached when they were in Shenzhen by two people who asked them if they were interested in working in Hong Kong. Three of the girls were able to give evidence that the second applicant (A2) was one of the people who approached them.

3. All the girls agreed to the proposal. They entered Hong Kong illegally on 16 March 1995 travelling in a van. They were taken to the Regal Riverside Hotel in Shatin. At the hotel they were met by the first applicant (A1) and a Mr Lee who was charged with these offences but who later absconded. Later in the evening A2 came to the room they were occupying at the hotel which is Room 1120.

4. The girls were told that they would be working as prostitutes and a tariff was laid down for their services dependent upon the amount of time the customer spent with them. Initially they were told that they would be debited HK$10,000 for the cost of bringing them to Hong Kong. They would work off this amount from their earnings from prostitution. Later they were told that the amount they would have to pay off was increased to $20,000. One of the girls then telephoned a friend she knew in Hong Kong and asked him to make a report to the police.

5. Police Officers attended at Room 1120 at 1.00am on 20 March. They found the five girls and Mr Lee in the room. They took them back to Shatin Police Station.

6. At 2.30pm on the same day Police Officers again attended at Room 1102 and found A1 there. He had in his possession a key to the room and a school exercise book which contained details of various transactions which had been effected concerning the girls.

7. In the evening of 20 March A2 was arrested while she was waiting outside Room 1120.

8. The hotel records relating to the three rooms which had been used indicated that payments had been made by both A1 and A2.

9. All five girls attended an identification parade and identified the applicants as being people who had been involved in bringing them to Hong Kong to work as prostitutes.

10. Both applicants made cautioned statements to the police. A1 admitted his involvement in the scheme. A2 only admitted hiring a room at the Regal Riverside Hotel on behalf of A1, her husband.

11. At the trial before Her Honour Judge Wong both applicants gave evidence. A1 tried to put all of the blame on Mr Lee and claimed that his role was limited to being a customer of the girls.

12. A2 claimed to be innocent. The reason she gave for making the payment to the hotel was that the payment was made at Mr Lee's request as he had previously been blacklisted by the hotel.

13. In her findings of fact Judge Wong gave reasons why she believed the evidence of the girls and rejected the evidence given by the applicants.

14. In his grounds of appeal, A1 complains that the prosecution "led the judge to a wrong adjudication". Before us he claimed that the police had lied when they had given evidence. They had forced him to telephone his wife to tell her to go to the Regal Riverside Hotel.

15. They had denied this. He claimed to be able to prove that he had made the telephone call from the police station. This would appear to be a peripheral matter and does not take matters further.

16. A2 maintained her innocence and claimed that the first she knew about there being any problem was when she was paged by her husband and told that he had been arrested by the police. She had gone to the Regal Riverside Hotel where she had also been arrested.

17. The trial judge had the benefit of hearing and seeing all the witnesses and we can see no reason to interfere with her findings of fact.

18. These convictions are in no way unsafe or unsatisfactory and both applications are dismissed.

Representation:

Mr D.G. Saw for Crown Prosecutor

Chong Chun Lung, 1st Applicant in person/present

Chiang Chi Ping, 2nd Applicant in person/present