HKSAR v. Chan Kam Wing

HCMA 1092/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1092 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM FLCC 2077/2005)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court

Date of Hearing: 21 December 2005

Date of Judgment: 21 December 2005

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.The Appellant was convicted after trial of a single charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  The offence occurred on 7 August 2005.  The target of the assault was his wife.

2.She gave evidence as did a police constable who attended at the scene as a result of her complaint.  In addition, a medical report relating to her examination upon arrival at hospital after the assault as well as photographs of the injuries sustained by her during the assault were introduced into evidence:  they establish the fact that actual bodily harm was occasioned to PW1.

3.The Magistrate recognised that the assault arose against a background of marital strife.  She correctly prevented the criminal trial from being turned into an opportunity to air matrimonial grievances.  She confined herself solely to the issues relating to the charge.

4.The Magistrate explained in detail in her statement of findings why she rejected the Appellant's version of the course of the assault:  she found, rightly, that upon his description of the events his wife would not have sustained the injuries which were evident from the evidence of PW2, the medical report and the photographs.  In essence it was his case that he had hit her once in the face and also on one occasion pressed her down onto a bed using his knees.  That version is wholly inconsistent with the substantial proven injuries.  He also appears to have suggested that the incident was started by his wife having slapped him and injured him:  the Magistrate rejected that, too, finding that no complaint had been made by him to the police nor had he made any request to receive medical treatment.

5.The Magistrate accepted the version of the Appellant's wife, finding support for it in the injuries she sustained.  She fully detailed (page 16 of the Appeal Bundle) why she did not regard the minor differences between PW1’s evidence in court and what she said to the police as affecting her credibility.  The Magistrate regarded her as an honest and reliable witness. 

6.Once she made those findings, conviction was inevitable.  The appeal is dismissed and the conviction confirmed.

Appellant in person

Miss Olivia Tsang, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent