R. v. Lao Weng Hon

CACC000511/1996

1996, No.511

(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

_______________

_______________

Coram: Hon Power, Ag. C.J., Bokhary J.A. and Sears J. in Court

Date of hearing: 11 April 1997

Date of judgment: 11 April 1997

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Sears J : (Delivering the judgment of the Court)

1. On 13 September 1996, after trial in the High Court before Deputy Judge Kilgour and a jury, this applicant was convicted of seven counts of burglary, four counts of attempted burglary and one count of robbery. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the burglary and attempted burglary and six years' imprisonment on the robbery charge, those sentences to run consecutively.

2. He has made an application for leave to appeal against conviction in respect of only the robbery count. The facts of that case were that Mr Cheng Fat was living at Flat D, 12^th Floor, Nassau Street, Mei Foo Sun Chuen. On 22 July 1996, at about 11:15 a.m., he had been asleep and he was woken up when he heard some noises in the sitting room. He opened the door and walked out and he saw that there were some males there. One of them came forward with a knife, rushed towards him and put the knife against his neck. He was pushed into the room and that male told him that they had come to do a robbery. He was asked where his valuables were and the men said if he do not look for them, they would chop him. They took his credit cards and asked for the pin number, they then tied up his hands. The telephone cord had been cut and he had lost a watch, a lighter, a pen, a mobile phone, some gold coins and two sets of gold stamps.

3. There was on that block of flats, as there were in other flats in the Mei Foo area, video cameras that recorded the persons inside the lift and timings were shown on the videos and the jury was shown two videos - one at 10:37 and one at 11:30. It was said by the prosecution that one of the persons there was this applicant. In the second video he was shown as counting out money to someone else in the lift.

4. He was interviewed by the police with regard to the large number of burglaries that had been taking place in the Mei Foo area and he had given statements to the police admitting his part in that. The police interviewed him with regard to the robbery charge and the police officer put to him that the robbery occurred at 11:15 a.m. inside this flat in Mei Foo and these particular items had been taken. The police officer cautioned the applicant and asked whether he wish to say anything. After he signed his name the applicant said "Ah sir, I wish to say something." The officer stopped him from speaking and asked him if he would like to write down anything himself. He said he would like to write it himself. What he wrote down was as follows :

"I can recall that HO Yuk-kin, LEUNG Yau-ming and I altogether had entered the house to get money. But all the items were realized and the money was spent."

The issue for the jury was whether that evidence, coupled with the video evidence made them sure that he was one of the persons that had perpetrated the robbery. He gave evidence and denied that it was himself in the lift and he denied that he had taken part in the robbery.

5. The judge in a very fair and full summing-up dealt with all the legal ingredients of the offences, the appropriate directions with regard to the burden of proof and he dealt in full with the evidence given by the defendant. This was a matter essentially for the jury to decide and on that evidence, they convicted the applicant.

6. We have examined all the evidence in this case, we can find nothing which in any way flaws this conviction, nor can it be said that this conviction is in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory. The application therefore is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Frank Veltro, S.C.C., for Crown

Applicant in person