Yuen Chun Shing v. Yuen Po Shun
|
CACC000658/1968 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 658 OF 1968 -----------------
Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 26 November 1968 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J: 1. The appellant and the respondent had been living as man and wife and I shall refer to them as such. The wife filed an information alleging an assault by the husband, upon which the learned magistrate issued a summons. Upon trial of the summons the wife gave evidence of a violent assault by the husband, which was alleged to have arisen out of a dispute about the method she was adopting to carry their baby to see a doctor. The wife's evidence was short but it appears to have contained all the material matters. The so-called cross-examination by the husband consisted merely of an assertion that he did not assault her. No witness was called by the wife. The husband gave evidence in the witness-box but said little more than that he denied the charge. He did say that on the day in question he remembered taking his son to see a specialist and that he was to arrive at the hospital not later than 1.30 p.m., that being half an hour after the time of the alleged assault. The materiality of that statement was never really indicated until the notice of appeal was filed. The husband now contends that the assault cannot have taken place as alleged because he was already on his way to the hospital at that time and was not at the place where the assault was alleged to have been committed. For some reason, which the magistrate could not understand and neither do I, the husband called an "Assistant Social Officer". I take it that means an Assistant Social Welfare Officer. This person knew nothing whatever about the alleged assault and was not present at the material time. 2. That was the sum total of the evidence which was adduced before the learned magistrate. One could have wished that many questions had been put to both the wife and the husband, but the learned magistrate had decide the case on the evidence before him and he appears to have believed the wife. Her evidence clearly supported an allegation of assault. There is, with respect to the learned magistrate, a misdirection in his reasons and findings in that he said that it is an assault to point a finger in anger and without lawful excuse even though the person concerned does not touch his opponent. An assault is an attempt to commit a forcible crime against the person of another and I think therefore that the learned magistrate stated the matter too generally. However it is quite clear he accepted that the husband did in fact strike the wife even though he was of opinion that her version might well be exaggerated. That being so, this appeal must be dismissed. 26th November 1968. Representation: Appellant in person Respondent in person |