R. v. Ho Wai Keung
|
CACC000628/1994 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1994, No. 628 ___________
___________ Coram: Nazareth V.-P., Bokhary and Liu JJ.A. Date of hearing: 26 May 1995 Date of judgment: 26 May 1995 _________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ Bokhary, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction. On November 21 last year before H.H. Judge Muttrie in the District Court, the applicant, a man aged 30, was convicted on two charges of burglary (being the 1st and 4th charges) and on two charges of giving false information to a pawnbroker (being the 16th and 18th charges). 2. Both burglaries occurred in a building at 380 Hennessy Road in Wanchai. The 1st charge burglary occurred on August 20, 1992, in premises on the 14th floor of Block B. The 4th charge burglary occurred earlier on 16th of that month in premises on the top floor of that block. 3. The evidence was that at the time of those burglaries, the applicant was living on the 14th floor of Block C of the building in which the burglaries occurred. 4. Turning to the two charges of giving false information to a pawnbroker, what had happened is this. On June 11, 1992, the applicant went to a pawn shop in Chaiwan and pawned something. On the 6th of the following month, he went to another pawn shop in Chaiwan and pawned something else. At the time of each instance of pawning, he was residing in Hennessy Road. But in each instance he gave the pawnbroker another address, being his uncle's address, as that of his residence. He did not deny that when he gave evidence. He said that he used to live with his uncle and continued to use his uncle's address as an address of convenience. 5. What the law required of him was that he give the pawnbrokers information which was true and not information that was merely convenient to him. There was no defence to the two charges of giving false information to a pawnbroker. And we refuse leave to appeal against the convictions on those two charges. 6. That leaves the two burglaries which the applicant had denied and which the Crown sought to prove over his denial. The evidence produced by the prosecution to that end was as follows. 7. Very shortly after the burglary on August 20, there was discovered on the applicant's person a jade pendant which had been taken in the course of that burglary. Upon such discovery, he made a verbal admission of that burglary. The judge was entitled, having received the evidence at first-hand, to find all of that proved. And finding the same proved, he was entitled to convict as he did, both on the basis of the doctrine of recent possession and on the basis of a confession. 8. Following such discovery and admission, the police discovered in the applicant's home a finger ring, a necklace and an immigration departure card which had been taken in the course of the earlier but still recent burglary on the 16th. The judge was entitled to find those facts. And in all the circumstances, he was entitled, as he did, to convict the applicant of that burglary as well: doing so on the doctrine of recent possession. 9. The judge considered whether the discovery of that property could be attributed solely to the applicant's brother who lived with him and had admitted to the burglary exonerating the applicant. The judge concluded that it was fanciful in all the circumstances to take that view of the case. He was entitled so to conclude. He did not feel any doubt about the matter by reason of any evidence exonerating the applicant. He had received the evidence at first-hand. We do not feel able to overturn his views on any of those matters. 10. On the burglary charges, too, leave to appeal against conviction is refused. And that is the end of the application as a whole, which fails.
Representation: Applicant in person Mr A.A. Bruce (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the prosecution |