HKSAR v. Wong Leong
|
CACC000578/1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL 1997, No.578
------------------------------- Coram: Mayo, Leong and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A. Date of Hearing: 7 January 1998 Date of Judgment: 7 January 1998 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. On 29th September 1997, this Applicant was convicted, following a trial before H.H. Judge Sweeney in the District Court, of two charges of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212. He was then sentenced to undergo a period of training at a Training Centre. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against this conviction and the sentence that was imposed. 2. The allegation was a most unpleasant one. The Applicant and one other young man were involved in a trivial incident with an off duty police officer. This led to the two young men and one other shortly afterwards collecting two large beef knives with which to attack the off duty policeman. They were aware that the police officer had gone to a pavement café for a meal with other colleagues. The Applicant and his two acquaintances took a taxi to that location. While the Applicant kept lookout, the other two went to carry out the attack. Serious injuries were inflicted to the off duty officer and one other person with whom he was having a meal. 3. The Applicant has drafted his own grounds of appeal in which he says that he was merely an onlooker and hurt no one himself. But today in court, he has accepted that he was clearly wrong. He adds, in relation to sentence, that there are family difficulties. 4. The evidence against this Applicant was strong. The learned judge examined it with great care. In particular, the evidence of the taxi driver showed that the Applicant gave directions as to where he should go just before the attack took place. In addition, the Applicant was identified by the victim as being in the taxi when the attack occurred. The Applicant's fingerprints were found inside the taxi. It was an agreed fact that the Applicant had been at the place where the earlier incident was alleged to have occurred. 5. The defence case amounted to an assertion that the Applicant's presence at the scene of the attack was innocent and accidental. The judge found that the Applicant had told what he described as a pack of lies which were carefully designed to get around all the large question marks surrounding his activities that night. 6. We can find no reason to interfere with his judgment in this case. There is no merit in the application either as to conviction or sentence. 7. The applications, therefore, are dismissed.
Representation: Mr. Y.M. Liu, S.G.C. for D.P.P./Respondent Applicant in person. |