Read the full judgment text of HCMA 000842/1987 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 December 1987 before Bewley J..
Criminal law – obtaining property by deception – Theft Ordinance s.17(1) – appeal against conviction – sufficiency of magistrate's findings of fact – construction of findings as a whole – whether representation related to camera alone or camera with accessories – whether intent to substitute was supported – shop assistant (appellant) at De Luxe Camera and Video Supplies Company took HK$2,500 from South African tourist (P.W.1) in exchange for video camera represented as complete with accessories – magistrate accepted P.W.1's evidence and rejected appellant's account – magistrate found appellant had no intention of selling the Toshiba camera (Exh. P2) with accessories for HK$2,500 and used deliberate withholding of accessories as device to create difficulties and lead to substitution of a Victor camera (Exh. P3) for Exh. P2 – appellant submitted 11th finding of fact sufficient to disturb conviction since he was willing to sell Exh. P2 alone for $2,500 – court held finding must be read with 7th finding referring to representation of camera with accessories – appellant also submitted finding of intent to substitute was farfetched as Victor was said to be more expensive – court rejected submission noting appellant's own statement to P.W.1 and objective comparison showed Toshiba was more sophisticated and better quality product – there may have been other reasons for substitution – all ingredients of offence proved – magistrate right to convict – appeal dismissed
Legal issues: Sufficiency of magistrate's 11th finding of fact when read in isolation · Reasonableness of finding that appellant intended to substitute Exh. P3 for Exh. P2
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld