Lau Yat Ming v. The Queen
|
CACC000657/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 657 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 31st October, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant appeals against his conviction on a charge of robbery. His Notice of Appeal alleges the improper admission or rejection of evidence and that there was no sufficient evidence whereon to found the conviction. In the event the whole of his case has been that there was no sufficient evidence whereon to found the conviction. 2. The evidence for the Prosecution was first that of the alleged victim, who said that he went to a bank and drew some money: when he left the bank he was attacked by two men, one of whom was the Appellant: he was knocked to the ground and some of his money was taken: when he got up, the two men ran away and he gave chase: however, he failed to catch either of them: he went to his original destination, a short distance away, and after having some treatment to a bleeding nose he reported to the police at Mongkok Police Station: in the Police Station he saw a man under the arrest of a constable and identified that man as one of those who had attacked him. A police officer gave evidence that he was on duty in Shanghai Street and saw two men acting in a suspicious manner: when he and his colleague went up to them they ran away: one of them, the Appellant, was arrested: was taken to Mongkok Police Station, having said that he had been involved in a fight with someone. At the Police Station, says the constable, the victim of this alleged robbery identified the Appellant as one of the robbers. 3. That was the evidence and if that evidence was believed it was ample evidence upon which to convict the Appellant. It is perhaps remarkable that the victim should have said that he noticed the Appellant and someone else in the bank and suspected them at that time of being up to no good. One cannot help but think that he was gilding the lily when he gave that evidence. 4. The learned magistrate considered the evidence and he was satisfied that the evidence which I have related was true. As I have said, it was ample evidence upon which to found a conviction and I cannot say that he came to a wrong conclusion. 5. The appeal is dismissed. 31st October, 1972. Representation: |