Read the full judgment text of CACC 000116/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 June 1999 before Nazareth, Ag. CJHC, Stuart-Moore, V-P, & Leong, J.A..
Criminal law – causing grievous bodily harm with intent – section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 – joint enterprise – applicant present when victim was assaulted after paying $300 at premises where prostitute's services were procured – victim suffered serious and permanent injury to left eye – trial in District Court before Deputy Judge Geiser – applicant convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment – whether trial judge erred in convicting on victim's evidence despite alleged inconsistencies in five statements made to police between January and May 1998, and despite the omission in the first four statements of any allegation that the applicant had instructed the assailants – held: no, trial judge was fully aware of the discrepancies, expressly recorded that the witness had been cross-examined at length about them, watched and listened to the witness, and was satisfied of his truthfulness on the central account of the telephone call, the demand for $300 and the instruction to 'teach him a lesson, hit him' – applicant's election not to give evidence left the account uncontradicted – judge properly concluded applicant was part of a joint enterprise – leave to appeal refused as utterly devoid of merit – three months disallowed from counting towards sentence so that, in effect, the sentence is increased by three months – original sentence of 18 months increased effectively to 21 months.
Legal issues: Whether the trial judge erred in convicting the applicant on the victim's evidence despite alleged inconsistencies in his statements to police
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; three months disallowed from counting towards the sentence so that, in effect, the sentence is increased by three months.