Wong Ying Fat v. The Queen

CACC000470/1976

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

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

Coram: Huggins, J.A.

Date of Judgment: 27th May 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. Two brothers were charged on two charges of wounding. One was acquitted on both charges and the other was convicted on both charges. The latter now appeals against his convictions.

2. This case was dealt with with great care by the learned magistrate and her reasons for verdict contained a certain logicality, but it is argued on behalf of the Appellant that the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory and counsel for the Crown, while pointing out to me what evidence there is to support the conviction, nevertheless is not prepared to argue strongly in favour of the convictions.

3. This is an unhappy story of annoyance to residents by persons playing football. The two victims, father and son, live in a ground floor flat and there is a playground outside. Footballs are continually hitting and, I believe, also breaking the windows. On the day in question a ball hit the window. The son then went out and started to remonstrate with the persons playing. A police officer who lives upstairs also came down and joined in. There was then a fracas. The son had unfortunately taken with him a knife - as he says, to give him confidence and to protect himself. He paid the price for that in that in the course of the fracas he was wounded by the knife and his father who came out in order to help him also was wounded with the knife.

4. The question was whether the Appellant was guilty of these woundings. There was no direct evidence of his having struck either the father or the son. The magistrate, as I said, quite logically drew the conclusion that this Appellant did strike the son from the fact that the person who did the stabbing was said by one of the witnesses to be a person who had spoken to the son and who had said he was "Shui Fong" and the fact that another witness said it was the Appellant who spoke those words. However, there was also a statement made by this Appellant which the learned magistrate appears to have taken as being of significance but which, with respect, I think was possibly given undue weight. That statement did not admit that the Appellant had had a knife or that he stabbed anybody. It did say that there was a struggle and did say that he acted in self-defence, but it is not clear what that particular action was referring to.

5. It is, I think, enough for me to say that in all the circumstances I think the verdict, although not entirely unsubstantiated, is not safe and that this appeal ought to be allowed. The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.

27th May 1976.

Representation: