R. v. Tang Man Chu
|
CACC000079/1996 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1996, No. 79
----------------------- Coram: Hon Power, V.-P., Bokhary and Mayo, JJ.A. Date of hearing: 2 July 1996 Date of judgment: 2 July 1996 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for robbery. He was charged together with another man of robbing Mr Pang the proprietor of a shop trading under the name 'Pang's collection'. He robbed the proprietor of the shop of the items referred to in the charge which were various antique items such as old stamps and banknotes and $22,350 in cash. The robbery took place on 17 May 1995. 2. According to the Chief Prosecution witness Mr Pang the applicant was a customer of his who had had dealings with him. He had approached him on the day in question and said that he wanted to have a discussion with him. Shortly after this another man entered his shop. He held a beef knife to his neck. His premises were ransacked and he was tied up with adhesive tape. After he untied himself he made a timeous complaint to the police. He also went through some of the items he had previously purchased from the customer he had been talking to and found an old electricity bill amongst the papers. The police made inquiries at the address in question and these inquiries led to the applicant. Mr Pang identified the applicant at an identification parade. 3. The applicant gave evidence at his trial before HH Judge Britton. He claimed that he had had a dispute with Mr Pang over the price he had been paid for some first day issue stamps he had sold to him. He denied the robbery and suggested that Mr Pang had testified against him simply out of a motive for revenge. 4. The judge carefully considered all of the evidence and was satisfied that Mr Pang was a truthful and reliable witness. 5. Before us the applicant said that there was no evidence and he denied that he had committed the offence. The answer to that is that there was ample evidence. 6. There is no reason to interfere with the judge's finding of fact and this application is dismissed.
Representation: Mr Veltro SCC for Crown Prosecutor TANG Man-chu - Applicant in person/present |