Lee Tit-lun v. The Queen

CACC000910/1976

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 16th October, 1976.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant was charged with two offences of theft, (1) of a camera and (2) of an electric drill. He was found not guilty of the theft of the camera but guilty of the theft of the electric drill. The facts were simple.

2. A police party went to a certain wooden hut where they found the appellant. The police party was in search of dangerous drugs. None were found. However, the camera and the electric drill, the subject matter of the two charges were found. There was evidence from an Inspector of Police that the appellant admitted that he had taken the drill from a building site in Kowloon in 1973. This virtually is the only evidence against the appellant who strenuously denied his guilt in his defence.

3. It would seem from the record that there was some doubt as to whether he did make such an admission to the police party. The officer who deposed the appellant having done so is not Chinese and there is no evidence that he understood the Chinese language. The learned magistrate who tried the appellant had a doubt whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him of the theft of the camera and when convicting him of the theft of the electric drill, he concluded his statement of findings with the words:

"With, perhaps, some little doubt in favour of the appellant, I accept the evidence of the prosecution (i.e. in respect of the theft of the electric drill) and found the appellant guilty."

4. In the circumstances, I think this conviction was unsafe and the appeal must be allowed and the sentence set aside.

Representation:

Fi-lan CHUA (D.L.A.) for Appellant.

Bellanto for the Crown/Respondent.