The Queen v. Chan Sai Chiu
Read the full judgment text of CACC 546/1988 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 July 1989.
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Judge Fung convicting CHAN Sai Chiu ("the Defendant") of one charge of wounding CHAN Fuk Sin with intent to do grievous bodily harm and of another of wounding TSUI Chan Por.
|
CACC0000546/1988
---------- Coram: Hon. Cons, V-P, Hopkinson & Wong, JJ. Date of hearing: 7 July 1989 Date of delivery of judgment: 7 July 1989 ----------------------- J U D G M E N T ----------------------- Cons, V.P. delivered the judgment of the Court: 1. This is an appeal against the decision of Judge Fung convicting CHAN Sai Chiu ("the Defendant") of one charge of wounding CHAN Fuk Sin with intent to do grievous bodily harm and of another of wounding TSUI Chan Por. 2. The decision depended almost entirely upon the credibility of two alleged victims. Their evidence was either basically true or a fabrication deliberately framed against the applicant. The judge accepted their evidence, despite certain inconsistencies, which he described as "having very little or negligible effect in assessing their credibility on the material issue". Despite Mr. Adams' assiduous and skilful efforts on behalf of the Defendant this morning, we see no reason to disagree with that conclusion of the judge. 3. The applicant gave no evidence below, but it was suggested there, and repeated in substance in both sets of the Defendant's homemade grounds of appeal, that in fact it was he who was the victim, acting only in self-defence when attacked by one or other of the alleged victims with a screw driver. It is true that injuries were found upon him, which included a puncture wound on the left arm, accepted by one of the doctors as consistent with being caused by a screw driver. A screw driver was subsequently found at the scene by a police constable. 4. Mr. Adams has taken these aspects of the evidence, and the many other aspects to which he has drawn our attention this morning, to suggest that together they should lead us to the conclusion that the judge's decision was unsafe or unsatisfactory. 5. There is only one matter which has given us any pause at all. The judge was clearly aware of the other matters to which Mr. Adams has drawn our attention but he made no reference to the fact that it was apparently the Defendant himself who drew the constable's attention to the hammer with which the victims say they were attacked. It is curious that he should do that if he were in fact guilty, but we have to note that no suggestion was made on hisbehalf that the hammer was used to inflict injuries on him. He chose rather the screw driver, to which apparently he made no allusion at the time. In the circumstances the failure of the judge to mention this aspect of the evidence - to which, we should add, his attention was not particularly drawn by the solicitor who then represented the Defendant, - does not give us sufficient cause for concern. It was essentially a matter of the credibility of the two witnesses; the judge was satisfied and we see no reason to interfere. 6. The application is therefore refused.
Representation: C. Coghlan Crown Prosecutor for the Crown N. Adams (Director of Legal Aid) for the Applicant |