The Queen v. Ho Hoi

CACC000576/1983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 1983

_________________

Between

Coram: Hon. Penlington, J. in Court

Date: 27th June, 1983

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. The magistrate has heard the witnesses of whom there were only two and he was of the view that he could accept the evidence given by the Police Constable and he said he did not accept that of the appellant. There are, however, some aspects of that evidence which cause me concern. The Constable says he was observing that the defendant in the distance of about 10 feet. He said he saw him approached a woman, use his right hand to unzip the zipper of her handbag and put his hand inside. On seeing this he went towards the defendant, who then let go of the bag and walked away. That being so, it seems to me he must have apprehended him only a very short distance away. He said that he apprehended the appellant and searched him and he then took him back to look for the victim, without success.

2. This means of course that there was no evidence at all from the woman with the handbag. The other aspect to the matter which caused me some concern was that although he was kept in custody, he was not told of the charge by the Duty Inspector until the next day.

3. I have a doubt about this matter; It may be the appellant is very fortunate, but I am not satisfied that this conviction is safe and the appeal will be allowed, the conviction will be quashed and the fine, if paid, be remitted.

Representation:

Miss Crebbin, Counsel for the Crown/Respondent.

Appellant in person.