Chung Ping Kai v. The Queen
|
CACC000119/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.119 OF 1969 -----------------
Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 7 March 1969 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J: 1. This case is similar to the last which was heard by me this morning in that the appellant was charged with being a suspected person found loitering and with possession of an instrument fit for an unlawful purpose. Here, again, the appellant was seen by the police looking into private cars. When he was eventually arrested he was found to have in his possession three pawn-tickets, two of which were satisfactorily explained but the third of which was not satisfactorily explained and in respect of which a charge of unlawful possession has been laid. 1. The appellant was seen standing beside a private car. He bent down and peeped inside. One of the constables said that because of this he and his companion kept then the defendant under observation. The appellant was seen to put on a pair of gloves and tried to open the door of another car. Having failed to open any of the doors he was seen to put his hand into his trouser's pocket. He was looking around him and at that moment two persons passed by. Apparently, on seeing them, the appellant walked away. When they had passed the appellant approached another car. He bent down and looked into that and also used his hands to try the door. Then he took out a screwdriver from his trouser pocket and tried to prise open the ventilating window. As he did so he was looking around him. Suddenly he pocketed the screwdriver and walked away but he was followed and arrested. He told the police that he was in fact walking there looking for someone. His defence was that he was walking along the road and had done nothing wrong when he was arrested. He denied that he had been loitering and he denied possession of the screwdriver. He said the pawn-ticket belonged to his elder brother. His mother also gave evidence to the effect that the elder brother had lent the appellant a watch, but she knew nothing about the pawning and she said that she had no son with the name which appeared on the pawnticket. 2. The learned magistrate believed all the evidence of the police witnesses and he carefully considered the evidence relating to the pawn-tickets. Although the appellant had given a story which might possibly have been true, the magistrate was obviously satisfied that it was untrue and what has been said in this court supports the conclusion which he reached, for the appellant has told me that the watch was never pawned by his elder brother - that it was in fact pawned by the foki of a mahjong school in which he himself had lost the watch in the course of play. I am satisfied that the learned magistrate was justified in convicting the appellant of unlawful possession of the pawn-tickets. 3. It has been necessary to consider further the evidence which is required to support a conviction of being a suspected person found loitering. Here again I am satisfied that on the facts of this case the conviction can be supported. It is not necessary for me to say whether the police officers were justified in treating the appellant as a suspected person from the moment they started to keep him under observation. I think there may well be some difficulty where a person is seen merely to look into a private car to say that that justifies suspicion that he is about to commit a felony. But here, after the observation commenced, the appellant continued to conduct himself in a manner which in the end clearly justified suspicion. He put on gloves, he tried the doors of a car, he put his hand into his trouser's pocket while he was looking around him and then walked away when passers-by appeared on the scene. When they had gone, he approached another car. He looked into that and tried to open the doors. At that time quite clearly there was every reason for suspicion. When he took out the screwdriver and attempted to open the window as the learned magistrate found that he did, that was evidence which justified the further finding that the appellant was a suspected person who was then loitering with intent to commit a felony. 4. The appeal is dismissed. 7th March, 1969. Representation: Appellant in person Mr. Lucas for the Respondent Judgment pronounced by Huggins J. in court |