HKSAR v. Razu, Miah

HCMA 416/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2010

(ON APPEAL FROM FLCC 292 OF 2010)

____________

Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court

Date of Hearing: 24 August 2010

Date of Judgment: 24 August 2010

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.The Appellant, a man of previous good character in his late twenties, was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court on a charge of criminal intimidation and was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.

2.He has filed a notice of appeal against conviction and a notice of appeal against sentence, complaining that the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory and that the sentence is too severe.

3.In court today, he informed me that he wishes to abandon his appeal against sentence.  He maintains his appeal against conviction, complaining that he was convicted on false grounds.

4.Madam Ho Chun Kam, who is named in the charge as the victim, testified that on 8 February 2010 the Appellant threatened her with a chopper when she came to him to collect the rent owed for the premises which her husband owned and at which the Appellant lived.  It was, she said, the fourth occasion on which he had threatened her in that manner.  She said that she had reported the earlier incidents to the police but they took no action on them. 

5.Giving evidence in his own defence, the Appellant denied that he had ever threatened Madam Ho.  He said that he merely told her that he could not pay and that she had scolded him in foul language.

6.The Magistrate rejected the Appellant’s evidence and accepted Madam Ho’s evidence.  He did so with the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and there is nothing to suggest that he failed to make proper use of that advantage or that he approached his fact finding task in any erroneous way.

7.I see no basis on which to disturb this conviction.  The appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed.

8.As far as appeal against sentence is concerned, although the Appellant has told me that he wishes to abandon it, but for the avoidance of doubt I wish to say this.  What has been found against the Appellant is that he threatened Madam Ho with a chopper, which is capable of use as a lethal weapon.  In my view, the sentence passed by the Magistrate cannot be said to be too severe.  Accordingly, the appeal against sentence would also have been dismissed had the Appellant pursued it.

Appellant in person

Ms Eva Chan, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent