Chui King v. The Queen

CACC000482/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 1975

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 4th July, 1975.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was found guilty of the offence of theft and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He appeals against his conviction.

2. The case for the prosecution was that he stole a purse from a woman on a bus. The woman alighted but raised a complaint. The appellant went up the upper deck and when the bus was searched the purse was found next to him on the seat.

3. During the trial, after the appellant gave evidence in his own favour, the officer in charge of the prosecution applied "to prove similar fact evidence" in order to rebut the explanation given by the appellant. Leave was granted and thereupon the magistrate was shown the record of the appellant's previous convictions which included nine pickpocketing offences. This is quite wrong. Section 54(1)(f) of the Criminal Procedure Codes states that a witness shall not be asked or required to answer any question tending to show that he was convicted or being convicted of any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged. Certain exceptions are then referred to in that section but they do not concern us in this case.

4. This is such an elementary proposition of law that it is unnecessary to quote any other authority.

5. There was in the present case ample evidence upon which the magistrate could have found the appellant guilty but I am left in doubt whether the admission of the record of the appellant was not taken into consideration in reaching the decision that the magistrate came to. I think the best thing to do, in the circumstances is to allow the appeal but to order that the appellant be remanded in custody to await trial by another magistrate.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

E. Soh for crown.