Lau Ki-leung v. The Queen

CACC000697/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 697 OF 1972

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th November, 1972.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The Appellant was charged before the learned magistrate on two charges, one of robbery and one of possession of an offensive weapon.

2. Two police officers saw the Appellant hurrying along the road in a housing estate. They said that they searched the Appellant and found upon him a lady's watch and a scout knife. They said that the Appellant was asked why he had the knife and he made no reply: however, when asked where he got the watch he said he took it in a lift a moment ago from a woman he had followed into the lift: he was then cautioned and a statement was made which the Appellant himself wrote down. This statement was challenged and the Appellant's story was that he was forced to write it in the Police Station. After the enquiry the learned magistrate admitted this statement in evidence. It stated

"Just then (I) used a knife to point at a woman in the lift. She gave me the watch by herself."

3. The Appellant's evidence was that the two articles were planted on him at the Police Station by the police. He says that he was seized in a mahjong school and hustled out to the Police Station and he contended that he wrote the statement because the police had pulled his hair until he did so. He said the statement was copied from something that a police officer had already written down.

4. The learned magistrate took the view that it would be dangerous to convict on the robbery charge solely on the evidence of the confession the alleged victim never having been identified. He therefore dismissed the robbery charge and that he was perfectly entitled to do. But the second charge was not dependent solely upon the confession, although the confession did corroborate the evidence of the two police officers.

5. There was ample evidence to justify a conviction on the charge of possession of an offensive weapon and I certainly see no reason to think that the learned magistrate came to a wrong conclusion.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

13th November, 1972.

Representation: