R. v. Kong Wing Chuen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 468/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 April 1995.
1. The applicant Kong Wing-chuen was convicted on 22 August 1994 after trial before Deputy Judge Yeung and a jury on one charge of robbery and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.
|
CACC000468/1994 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1994, No. 468 ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Power, V.-P., Litton, V.-P. and Bokhary, J.A. in Court Date of hearing: 28 April 1995 Date of judgment: 28 April 1995 __________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ Litton, V.-P. （giving the judgment of the Court): 1. The applicant Kong Wing-chuen was convicted on 22 August 1994 after trial before Deputy Judge Yeung and a jury on one charge of robbery and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction. 2. It was an admitted fact that a serious robbery took place on 17 January 1991 at the premises of Hang Fai Electrical Co. located at No. 3 Po Yick Street, Tai Po, when a gang of five men entered the premises at 11.30am. One was armed with a semi-automatic 7.62mm calibre pistol and two had knives. There were a total of eight victims in the premises and large sums of cash and amounts of valuables were stolen. The burglar alarm was tripped, but when a party of police officers arrived, they were subdued by the robbers at gun point and the service revolvers of four of the male officers were taken. The robbers then fled in a van driven by one of the robbers. It was not the Crown's case that the applicant was one of the five robbers but that he was the mastermind who did the liaison between the robbers, procured the gun and generally planned the whole operation. 3. The evidence against the applicant came mainly from two sources: (1) A witness Kwong Kin-kuen who was one of the accomplices; and (2) What the applicant had told the police after he was arrested. The judge gave impeccable directions to the jury concerning both aspects of the case. The applicant's defence was summarised comprehensively by the judge. The jury convicted. 4. There are no grounds for interfering with the conviction. The application is dismissed.
Representation: Mr D.G. Saw and Mr D. Pang (Crown Prosecutor) for Respondent/Crown Applicant (KONG Wing-chuen) in person |