The Queen v. Tsui Kam-ming
Read the full judgment text of CACC 484/1983 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an appeal against conviction. The Counsel for the appellant quite properly submits that the only ground upon which challenged the magistrate's finding, which was essentially a finding of fact was on the basis that a Mr. Mok Yet Tim who was arrested the same time as the appellant was not called to give evidence because the appellant's legal adviser at that stage did not realize that he could give relevant evidence.
|
CACC000484/1983 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 1983 ____________________ Between
___________________ Coram: Hon. Penlington, J. in Court Date: 28th June, 1983 __________ JUDGMENT __________ 1. This is an appeal against conviction. The Counsel for the appellant quite properly submits that the only ground upon which challenged the magistrate's finding, which was essentially a finding of fact was on the basis that a Mr. Mok Yet Tim who was arrested the same time as the appellant was not called to give evidence because the appellant's legal adviser at that stage did not realize that he could give relevant evidence. 2. While I was somewhat doubtful as to whether that was indeed the case and also doubtful as to whether Mr. Mok, on his affidavit, was a credible witness, I allowed his evidence to be called. Having heard his evidence I am now entirely satisfied his evidence as totally unreliable. 3. The evidence given today contradicts his own affidavit but quite apart from that and it is evidence which no magistrate could accept. That being so I am satisfied the conviction was clearly a proper one and the appeal is dismissed.
Representation: J.W. Dick, Counsel for the Crown/Respondent. Thomas Iu (H.M.So & Co.) for Appellant. |