R. v. Ho Kam Hung and Another

CACC000596/1994

____________

____________

Coram: Power, V.-P., Litton, V.-P. and Bokhary, J.A.

Date of hearing: 28 April 1995

Date of Judgment: 28 April 1995

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Bokhary, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. We were asked by the applicants to adjourn this matter. There is no reason whatsoever to do so. So the applications proceeded. And this is the judgment of the court on those applications.

2. These two applicants, both men in the mid 20's, were tried before Leonard J and the jury on an indictment containing three counts. Each count was of robbery. And each count was against both men.

3. On November 11 last year, both men were convicted on all counts. Both now seek leave to appeal against their convictions. In his notice of application for leave to appeal, the 1st applicant has inserted one ground of the appeal. It reads:-

"The judge misled the jury."

4. In the 2nd applicant's notice of application for leave to appeal, four grounds appear. They read:-

" (1) The judge misled the jury and he was partial to the prosecution.

(2) The prosecution only relied on the testimonies of the Police and witnesses. It did not have other strong evidence to prove that I was guilty.

(3) All my testimonies were found not substantiated.

(4) I found that the jury did not concentrate during the trial."

5. In fact, the principal evidence against each applicant was the eyewitness evidence of their alleged victims: a Mr Lai in respect of the 1st and 3rd counts and a Mr Ma in respect of the 2nd count.

6. As far as the 1st and 3rd counts are concerned, the issue was identification.

7. As far as the 2nd count is concerned, the issue was whether the applicants had robbed Mr Ma or had merely been involved in a fracas with him.

8. On both issues - and indeed on all issues - the judge summed up accurately and fairly. The jury was not misled. Nothing has been said to indicate partiality or lack of concentration on anybody's part.

9. Having studied these papers with the care which our duty requires us to bring to bear on such matters, we are satisfied that there is no basis for disturbing these convictions. And we refuse leave to appeal.

Representation:

Applicants in person

Mr D.G. Saw & D. Pang (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the prosecution