Yu Ching v. The Queen
|
CACC000970/1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 970 OF 1974 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J. Date of Judgment: 22nd November, 1974. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant in this case was found guilty of two robberies and sentenced to two years and nine months' imprisonment. He appeals against his conviction and sentence. 2. The case for the prosecution was that on the 28th May, 1973 the appellant and another man robbed a mother and her daughter of a considerable quantity of articles and a sum of about $7,000. The two robbers tied up the victims, that is the mother and her daughter. They also tied up the caretaker. They used knives to subdue the victims and left them tied up. In addition, one of the robbers forced the mother to go to the restaurant of which she was the proprietress where she was made to open the safe from which the robber took $7,000. 3. These were undoubtedly very serious offences. On October 8th, 1974 the caretaker saw the appellant in the street near the place where the offence occurred. He told a detective sergeant who happened to be in the vicinity that the appellant was one of the two robbers. He must have given the detective sergeant the appellant's name because the appellant said in evidence that when he was arrested the detective sergeant used his name. 4. The whole of this case depended upon the identification of the appellant by the three victims. On October 9th, 1974, an identification parade was held at which the mother and her daughter were present. They were unable to pick out the appellant, who was one of the persons on parade. However, immediately after the parade they saw the appellant outside the place where the parade was held and then identified him positively as being one of the robbers. At that time the appellant was under the escort of a uniformed police officer. This cast considerable doubt on the evidence as to the identification of the appellant by these two witnesses. There is a further point, they said that they were unable to identify anyone at the parade because they were very frightened. If they were frightened nearly eighteen months after the event they must have been in a great state of fear at the time the offence occurred. 5. The caretaker did not attend the identification parade but he stated in evidence that he had seen the appellant on three or four occasions after the robbery near the place where the offence took place. He said in evidence that he made no report of this to the police because on those occasions there were no police present. But, as I have said, he appears to have known the name of the appellant. Again, I think the evidence of this witness as to the identification leaves much to be desired. 6. The appellant, in evidence, said that he frequently went to the building where the offence took place and he used to see the caretaker often before he was arrested. He said he was unable to state what he was doing on the 28th May, 1973, the date of the offence, because it was so long ago. 7. In the event, I think the evidence of identification of all three witnesses is unsatisfactory. I therefore allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence.
Representation: C. Wong (Yu Tsang Loong) for Appellant. Eric Li, s.c.c. for Crown/Respondent. |