HKSAR v. Tsoi Wing Leung, William
Read the full judgment text of CACC 540/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 February 2003.
1. On 8 October 2002, the Applicant was convicted after trial of the offences of false imprisonment, blackmail and assault with intent to cause acts to be done. These offences all related to the extortion of a failed Macau gambler who had resorted to loan sharks. The false imprisonment took place at a karaoke bar on 13 August 2001. The blackmail and assault took place at the victim's home later that day. These offences were committed in Hong Kong of course.
|
CACC000540/2002 CACC 540/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 540 OF 2002 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 769/2002) ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Ma JA in Court Date of Hearing: 18 February 2003 Date of Decision: 18 February 2003 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.On 8 October 2002, the Applicant was convicted after trial of the offences of false imprisonment, blackmail and assault with intent to cause acts to be done. These offences all related to the extortion of a failed Macau gambler who had resorted to loan sharks. The false imprisonment took place at a karaoke bar on 13 August 2001. The blackmail and assault took place at the victim's home later that day. These offences were committed in Hong Kong of course. 2.The Applicant was tried and convicted with three other Defendants. Deputy Judge Mackintosh concluded that the offences, with which all four Defendants were charged, were all part of a joint enterprise. On 22 October 2002, the Applicant was sentenced to 2 years for the false imprisonment, 3 years for the blackmail and 18 months for the assault. The sentences for the first two offences were to run concurrently. Of the 18 months imposed for the third offence, six months were ordered to run consecutively, 12 to run concurrently with the other sentences. In all, the sentences for the Applicant amounted to 3 years and 6 months. 3.In his Application, the Applicant sought leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence, as did the other Defendants. They likewise sought leave to appeal but they have since abandoned their appeals. 4.Today, the Applicant has abandoned his application for leave to appeal against sentence. 5.As to conviction, no real grounds are set out in the grounds of appeal contained in the Application. Today, the Applicant has criticised the judge's findings of fact, in particular his believing the victim's testimony. He has tried to give his version of events and has made submissions effectively treating today as a fresh trial of the matter. 6.The learned Judge convicted the Applicant after carefully considering the evidence of the victim, the other witnesses and the totality of the evidence before him. He was careful in assessing the victim's credibility since there might be said to have been an element of self-interest in giving evidence against the Defendants. He also fully took into account the version of events advanced by the fourth Defendant who was the only Defendant to give evidence. The Applicant chose not to give evidence as was his right. 7.I see no grounds of appeal whatsoever to challenge the judge's verdicts here. Therefore, I refuse leave to appeal against conviction.
Representation: Tsoi Wing Leung, William, the Applicant, in person. Mr Martin Hui, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent. |