Lai Hung v. The Queen
|
CACC000776A/1973 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 776 OF 1973 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 24th October 1973. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal against a convection for keeping a brothel, under s.12 of the Protection of Women and Juveniles Ordinance. The Appellant was jointly charged with two girls, they being charged with aiding and abetting the keeping of a brothel. 2. The prosecution arose as a result of a police raid. Two male police officers went to the suspected premises and their evidence was that they were greeted by the Appellant at the entrance of the premises; that it was he who asked their requirements, enquired whether they knew a particular girl that they wanted, offered to find a beautiful girl to make love to them and subsequently conducted them to rooms and brought girls to them. When the premises were subsequently searched he was found to have in his custody the money which had been paid by the police officers. In addition, when after some time a woman police inspector came on the scene, he is said expressly to have admitted that he was the person who was in charge. 3. The grounds of appeal are now stated to be that the conviction was against the weight of evidence, that there was no sufficient evidence upon which it could be held that the Appellant was the keeper of the premises and, thirdly, in all respects that there was no sufficient evidence upon which to found the conviction. In respect of this third ground a particular aspect of the matter was argued, that there was no sufficient evidence that this was a brothel. 4. It seems to me that the evidence which was adduced by the prosecution, if believed, was ample upon which to found a conviction. There was evidence that these were not the only customers who had been to the premises; there was the evidence that the Appellant asked whether the officers wanted any particular girl, which clearly indicates that this was not the one and only occasion on which these premises were used for the purposes of a brothel. The definition of a "keeper" in the Ordinance is that it "includes any person having or appearing to have the management or control of the premises". The admission that he had control was itself sufficient. The evidence of the police was that none of the police officers saw anybody else in these premises. Inspector Wong, when she arrived, made no secret of her arrival and announced in a loud voice that she was going to search the premises. It is said that she did not search the whole of the premises but it is a matter for comment at least that nobody else put in an appearance at that time. 5. The only real ground which needs attention is whether it can be fairly said that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The Appellant's case was that he was merely a cashier. He said that he did not meet the two police officers, that he did not conduct them to a room and did not bring girls to them: he said that there were other persons employed for these purposes. Indeed, the case which was put forward by the girls was that this was not a brothel because all that was intended was that they should act as hostesses and keep customers company, there being no act of lewdness within the terms of the agreement. The learned magistrate was obviously fully satisfied on the evidence of the two police officers that the two girls undressed themselves and did in fact invelve themselves in acts of lewdness. It is contended that the premises were rather dark and that therefore the identification of the Appellant by all three police officers should be regarded with some sceptism. It is fairly pointed out that the mistake, if any was made, was a mistake between a man of 61 (who is the Appellant) and a boy of some 18 years, which would be a very difficult mistake to make, particularly in view of the fact that the voice would be different even if it were in pitch darkness: but the witnesses did not accept that it was anything approaching pitch dark and they were satisfied that they could dentify the Appellant. Nobody else, as I said, put in an appearance, so it is difficult to see for whom they could have mistaken the Appellant. 6. Counsel drew attention to the fact that there was an apparent discrepancy between the evidence of the male police officers and Inspector Wong as to the state of undress of the two girls. I think the learned magistrate did not attach any weight to this apparent discrepancy - and, I think, with justification, because, as I have already said, Inspector Wong made no secret of her arrival and it is to be anticipated that as soon as the girls were aware that the police were entering they would not wait unduly long before attempting to dress and by the time the inspector reached the second room it is not altogether surprising that the girl in that room was already approaching full dress. It is, again, a matter of fair comment that these rooms were furnished in a way which, perhaps, is not customary for this sort of establishment, there being no bed or couch, but that is not in itself, in my view, a sufficient ground for casting any doubts upon the correctness of the decision. 7. In all the circumstances I am unable to say that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence and this appeal must be dismissed. 24th October 1973 Representation: |