The Queen v. Lai Yun Tin

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 470
(Criminal)

THE QUEEN

And

LAI YUN-TIN

__________________

Coram: Hon. Yang, Silke, JJ.A. & Power, J.

Date of hearing: 17th March, 1987

Date of delivery of judgment: 17th March, 1987

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

Yang, J.A.:

1. This is Lai Yun Tim's application for leave to appeal against his conviction for one count of forcible detention and another count of theft.

2. On the 27th January 1986 a gentleman by the name of HO Yuen, 60 years of age, was abducted from a carpark by three persons. On the following day, he paid a ransom of three million dollars.

3. The evidence against the Applicant consisted of an oral statement made by him to Inspector Lo after his arrest, and also the finding of some $290,000 in cash in a drawer in his home. Upon finding of the case he said to Inspector Lo that this money was his share of money in connection with the case of Ho Yuen. It is necessary here to quote the evidence of Inspector Lo -

"I then asked the 3rd accused LAI Yun-tim, 'Whose money is this?' In reply LAI Yun-tim said that the money was his. I then asked him how was the money obtained. In reply to me he said the money was obtained from that case. Again I asked him which case. He then answered it was obtained in the case of HO Yuen. On hearing this, I then immediately verbally cautioned him by saying, 'You are not obliged to say anything, but whatever you say may be given in evidence,' and I asked him if he understood. He then nodded his head. Again I asked him, 'How much is it inside the drawer?' He told me that there was $290,000. I then asked him again, 'Where is the other money other than this money, that is other than the $290,000?' Re said he had lost the remaining of the money in gambling."

4. Mr. Corrigan, appearing for the Applicant in this Court, submitted that those words did not entitle the jury, even in the context of the finding of the cash, to come to the conclusion that the Applicant was guilty of forcible detention of HO Yuen and theft of the money.

5. However in our view what the Applicant said to Inspector Lo has to be taken in context. Firstly, there were certain lies he told Inspector Lo upon the finding of the money but, more importantly, there was the information given by Sergeant Kwan Hing to the Applicant upon his arrest, for it was Sergeant Kwan Ring's evidence in re-examination by Crown counsel:

"Q. It was made quite clear to him on the 27th of February that he was in custody and under arrest in relation to the kidnapping of the victim in this case, is that right?

A. Yes."

6. In our judgment taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, the jury was entitled to come to the verdict that they did and for these reasons the application is refused.

A. Corrigan, Q.C. & M. Lunn (C.K. Mok & Co.) for the Applicant/D3

A.A. Bruce for Crown/Respondent