Ma Kwok Piu v. The Queen
|
CACC000710/1968 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 1968 -----------------
Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 13 December 1968 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J: 1. The appellant was convicted of robbery with aggravation. A man named Yuen Wing-keung gave evidence that he was walking in the street near the Kam Kwok Theatre when two men came up to him. One of them(the appellant) accosted him and the two men then took him to a staircase. Where the appellant asked for his wrist watch. The appellant said, "Do you want me to beat you up before you will hand over the watch?" and then the appellant took the watch from his wrist. Unfortunately the victim did not think fit to make a report, having been dissuaded from doing so on the grounds that the watch was of little value. However, some time later the victim happened to see the appellant in the street. He followed him and subsequently called upon some police officers, who arrested him. 2. The appellant gave no evidence and called no witness. He now appeals against his conviction. The first ground that he advances is one which does not appear in the notice of appeal, namely, that he was wrongfully refused an adjournment to instruct a solicitor and to call a witness. The appellant first asked for an adjournment at the end of the examination-in-chief of Yuen Wing-keung. The learned magistrate thought that the appellant had had ample opportunity to instruct a solicitor if he so wished and he refused an adjournment. In my view there is no reason to believe that that was a wrongful exercise of his discretion. This is he record of any application for an adjournment to call a witness but, on the contrary, the appellant said," ..... I have no witness to call." 3. The appellant then says that there was no evidence or no sufficient evidence to justify the conviction. It was eminently a matter for the learned magistrate to decide whether or he believed the evidence of the prosecution. The appellant has suggested that he was prejudiced in that he did not know what the procedure in the court was, but the learned magistrate clearly told him in terms what were his rights and the appellant elected to give no evidence and to call no witnesses. With his customary thoroughness the learned magistrate considered the issues which were before him. He had no doubt that the complainant was robbed and he considered very carefully the possibility that there had been a wrong identification. He even indicated that if the appellant had given some evidence, such as that of an alibi, that might have raised a doubt in his mind. As things were he had no doubt and, in my view, he was entirely justified in entering the verdict which he did. 4. The appeal is dismissed. 13th December, 1968. Representation: Appellant in person Mr. Duckett for the Respondent |