HKSAR v. Ding Qinghua
|
HCMA 203/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA 203 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 2652/2007) ----------------------
---------------------- Before: Hon Beeson J in Court Date of Hearing: 2 July 2008 Date of Judgment: 2 July 2008 Date of Judgment Handed Down: 9 July 2008 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1.The Appellant was convicted after trial in the Magistracy of one count of Wounding, contrary to Section 19 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. She was sentenced to a Probation Order of 36 months. 2.The Appellant was represented at the trial by the Duty Lawyer. She appeals against her conviction only. 3.The victim of the wounding, an 88-year-old male, resided with his son, his daughter-in-law who is the Appellant and a 3-year-old grandson. The Appellant had come to Hong Kong in August 2006 from China to live with her husband and the victim. The property had been purchased jointly by the victim and his son. It appears that unhappy differences had arisen between the parties and that the Appellant had several times suggested that her father-in-law move into an elderly home. 4.On the morning in question, the victim went out of the toilet to go back to his bedroom, at which point the Appellant asked him to go to the elderly home. He said he had no need to do so, because he had the right to live in the flat having paid for half of it. The Appellant dashed over and hit him, according to the victim, and punched him on the left eye. She then took a CD case and threw it at the corner of his mouth without causing to an injury. 5.The victim returned to his room, closed the door and dialled 999. A police officer came and he was taken to Yan Chai Hospital for medical treatment. After examination at the hospital, the victim was found to have a laceration of about one centimetre long at his left eyebrow which needed suturing. 6.Under caution, the Appellant said to the police officer:
7.The Appellant elected to give evidence. She gave several versions of what had happened. One version was that the victim had come out to the living room, the Appellant said something and he had attacked her by punching the right side of the back of her head. She shouted for help from her husband. She denied having hit PW1 deliberately. She next alleged that he had been somehow hit by the door of his own room, although she could not say how the door had hit him. She had told the police that she was assaulted. A woman police officer who dealt with her, found no indication of assault although the medical report compiled some hours later in respect of the Appellant showed that she had a red mark at the back of her neck. 8.The Appellant referred on appeal to old complaints about her relationship with her father-in-law. It was suggested to the police officer, PW2, that the Appellant had actually said under caution “I pushed him away. I don’t know whether the VCD box might have accidentally hit his cheek.” The police officer denied that was what was said and relied on what he recorded in the notebook. 9.The magistrate noted the evidence of the two protagonists and clearly found the Appellant an evasive witness who changed her story. He was satisfied that the incident occurred in the manner that PW1, the victim, had told the court and overall, he was satisfied that the police witnesses were honest and accurate. 10.No specific grounds of appeal were filed by the Appellant, who, when she appeared at the court, wished to re-try the matter, apparently unable to accept that she had been convicted. 11.I was satisfied the magistrate had dealt correctly with the evidence and that there was no basis for interfering with the conviction. 12.Accordingly, I dismissed the appeal.
Mr Raymond Cheng, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant appearing in person |