Lai Hung v. The Queen
|
CACC000776/1973 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 application to call fresh evidence on appeal. The charge was one of keeping a brothel and the Appellant was convicted on the evidence of police witnesses who went to the premises. The defence was that the Appellant was not the person having the apparent management of the premises at the time the police carried out their raid. It was alleged by the defence that one Suen was the proprietor of the establishment. No other name was mentioned in the course of the trial. It was suggested by the Appellant that he was merely a cashier and he denied that he met the persons who came to the premises and conducted them to rooms and took girls to them. It is now sought to call as a witness a man called SIU Chung-wah, who is said to have been in the premises at the time although the police evidence before the learned magistrate was that no person other than the Appellant was present. 2. The first observation I must make is that notice was served this morning stating that it was desired to call further evidence. Notice was given orally to counsel on Friday of last week. There is no affidavit of any kind before the Court. It is quite clear that this Court cannot act without an affidavit in such a matter as this, and that of itself, in my view, is sufficient answer to this application, but it must further be said that the reason given is by no means sufficiently stated in the Notice or satisfactory. What is contended is that the witness, like the Appellant, had been engaged at the premises for only three days at the time of the raid; that the proposed witness left his employment after the police investigation and that the Appellant had been unable to trace him. No indication is given of any attempts made to trace him and, as I have indicated, there is no mention of this man by name in the course of the trial. No application was made to the learned magistrate in relation to him and, so far as I know, no request was made to the prosecution to assist in tracing a witness whom it was desired to call. Whether or not the evidence could be sufficient to cause this Court to say that there was doubt about the verdict, it is not really necessary for me to decide. It would, in my view, need very strong evidence and be an exceptional case where the court would allow the adducing of fresh evidence on an appeal and I am satisfied that this is not such a case. 3. The application must be dismissed. 24th October 1973. Representation: |