Kwong Fu v. The Queen
|
CACC000687/1980
----------------- Coram: Liu, J. Date of Judgment: 14th October, 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. On the 11th of November, last year, in the staircase of 106 Jaffe Road, the appellant was arrested by two police officers, Constable Chow and Constable Choi. Both of them gave evidence before the learned magistrate. 2. According to the officers, the appellant was searched by Constable Chow. He submitted to the search, and on him, four packets of dangerous drugs were found. After the discovery of these four packets, the appellant ran for the roof with the officers in hot pursuit. 3. Constable Chow described the incident on the roof, particularly as to how a wooden pole was used by the appellant to keep the police at bay. There was a scuffle before the appellant was subdued. 4. Both officers gave corroborative evidence on the discovery of drugs, the arrest, the subsequent chase and the appellant's resistance on the roof. 5. Before me, the appellant cirticized the evidence of both officers. He told the court that whilst Constable Chow referred to 106 Jaffe Road, Constable Choi recalled the house number as 102. 6. In his Statement of Findings, the learned magistrate made the following observations:-
7. The appellant informed me this morning that the common staircase was shared by 106 with 104 and not 102. According to the appellant, these matters call for further investigation and deserve to be reventilated. 8. There seems to be little justification for the learned magistrate to make that assumption as regards the common staircase. That only a single incident was testified to by both officers has never been disputed. The location was not in issue. The discrepancy as to house numbers and what would appear to be an unwarranted inference drawn by the learned magistrate have not, in my view, cast any doubt on any of the convictions which are in all respects otherwise well-founded. 9. The appellant also called Dr. Lee from Tang Siu Kin Hospital. Dr. Lee told the court that at about 7.40 p.m. on the 12th of November, he treated the appellant for abrasions over the chest and legs and that bruises were also observed on his legs. He told the court that the injuries were consistent with an assault on the appellant two, three days before examination. 10. The police officers painted a picture of violent opposition aided by the use of a pole. It would be difficult for police officers in the lawful execution of their duties, in these circumstances, to assess and/or exercise the proper degree of restraint. The injuries found by the doctor on the person of the appellant upon his release on bail cannot, in my view, undermine any of the convictions perfectly justified by the evidence adduced before the learned magistrate. 11. The appellant urged before me that the dark and narrow staircase made the activities described by the officers improbable. The appellant had his case fully canvassed before the trial magistrate. He was ably represented and gave his own version as to the circumstances and manner in which he was apprehended. He offered a different sequence. He claimed to have been framed. He explained why he endeavoured to elude two, what he described as, total strangers. But it must not be overlooked that in the cross-examination of Constable Chow, counsel for the appellant taxed him on prior encounter. Whereupon Constable Chow replied, "I had searched him once a long time ago.". It was understandably not too convincing for this appellant to tell the learned magistrate that he feared robbery on the approach of the officers. 12. The learned magistrate weighed the evidence of the prosecution and of the defence. It was a decision based entirely on credibility bearing well in mind the heavy burden of proof on the prosecution. The learned magistrate found the case proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and he was duly convicted. 13. I find the appeal unmeritorious. I order:
Representation: Appellant in person. Mr. Egan, counsel for the Crown/Respondent. |