HKSAR v. Ng Siu Fai
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 201/2011 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 23 April 2012.
1. The Defendant is charged with 15 counts of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
Cites 1 case
|
DCCC 201 /2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 201 OF 2011 ____________________
____________________ Reasons for Verdict ____________________ INTRODUCTION 1.The Defendant is charged with 15 counts of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. 2.The offences took place at Mong Kok Police Station (the “Police Station”) on various days between 24 August 2009 and 23 August 2010 inclusive with the following particulars:
3.The prosecution called 29 prosecution witnesses, namely:
4.A set of Admitted Facts was agreed by the prosecution and the defence pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221. That set of Admitted Facts was produced as Exhibit P1. The following materials were also produced pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221:
It was admitted in Exhibit P1 that the answers given by the defendant in the cautioned interviews captured in Exhibits P2A, P3A, P4A and P5A were all voluntary. It was also admitted in Exhibit P1 that the defendant was of good character. It was not in dispute that the defendant was the police officer who handled the found property in the present 15 charges. 5.The following witness statements were admitted and produced as exhibits by virtue of section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221:
6.Before the prosecution closed its case, Mr Ryan informed me that the owner of the wallet in relation to Charge 1 was not in Hong Kong and the owner of the wallet in relation to Charge 9 was seriously sick, that both of them were unable to attend this court to testify, and that the prosecution would offer no further evidence on Charges 1 and 9. 7.As there was no evidence as to the contents of the respective wallets in relation to Charges 1 and 9 when the wallets were subsequently returned to the respective owners by the defendant, hence no evidence that some of the contents were taken away after PW4 and PW19 had delivered the respective wallets to the defendant, I ruled no case to answer in respect of Charges 1 and 9. I ruled a case to answer for each of the remaining 13 charges. 8.The defendant elected to testify. No other defence witness was called. During the defendant’s testimony, the following exhibits were produced:
THE PROSECUTION’S CASE Background 9.In 2009 and 2010, the layout of the Report Room of the Police Station was as shown in Exhibit P11. At all material times, one of the defendant’s duties was working as a Report Room Receptionist at the Police Station. The defendant would sit at the triage reception desk which was on the right hand side of the entrance to the Police Station. When a member of the public went into the Police Station, the defendant’s duty as a Report Room Receptionist was to make a preliminary enquiry with that person to understand what kind of report that person was going to make, and then to direct that person to go to the appropriate counter. For example, if a member of the public came to report that he had picked up a wallet, the Report Room Receptionist should direct that person to bring along the wallet to go to the Loss Counter shown in Exhibit P11 so that the officer at the Loss Counter would entertain that person. In addition to the Loss Counter, there were two other counters next to the Loss Counter manned by two other officers, one being the Assistant Duty Officer (“ADO”) and one called “Tai Lau (睇樓)”. Those two counters were responsible for different kinds of reports made. Apart from dealing with found property report and lost property report, the Report Room Receptionist would also direct members of the public to those two other counters if appropriate. For example, if a civilian came to report a theft case, the Report Room Receptionist would direct that civilian to go to one of the counters next to the Loss Counter so that the officer in charge of that counter would deal with the theft case with that civilian. 10.According to the Police General Order, when a civilian came to make a police report, the police officer had to record the details of the report in the computer system called the Communal Information System (“CIS”). According to the Police General Order, when a civilian handed over found property to the police station, the police officer had to make an accurate and clear record of the details of the found property in the CIS and to issue a receipt, namely Pol 68D, to that civilian. As computers were located at the three counters (i.e. the Loss Counter and the two other counters next to the Loss Counter) but not at the triage reception desk, it would be the police officer at the Loss Counter, not the Report Room Receptionist, who could make an accurate and clear record of the details of the found property in the CIS. As there was no computer located at the triage reception desk, the Report Room Receptionist had no means to input any details of the found property into the CIS at the triage reception desk. Therefore, the Report Room Receptionist had to direct the civilian to take along the found property to the Loss Counter so as to enable the police officer at the Loss Counter to input the details of the found property into the CIS and to issue a receipt listing the details of the found property to the civilian. The receipt, i.e. Pol 68D, needed to be signed by the civilian and the officer who input the details into the CIS. If the Report Room Receptionist was to take the found property from the civilian, make a record in his police notebook, send the civilian away and subsequently take the found property to the Loss Counter, it was a deviation from the Police General Order. 11.The Loss Counter was not open all round the clock. When the Loss Counter was closed, the found property report would be dealt with by the other two counters next to the Loss Counter as computers were also installed at the other two counters. Found property report had to be dealt with by those counters where computers were installed, not by the Report Room Receptionist, because details of the found property had to be recorded in the CIS. Normally the receipt was given to the civilian before he left the Police Station. If the civilian said he did not want the receipt, his refusal to take the receipt would have to be indicated in the CIS. 12.In general, after the details of the found property had been entered into the CIS and a receipt had been issued to the civilian, the police officer at the Loss Counter would then hand over the found property to the police officer at the Property Office who would then handle the found property and try to locate the owner of the found property. Sometimes, the police officer at the Report Room, including the Report Room Receptionist, would also try to locate the owner of the found property. However, in general, since it was the officer at the Loss Counter who input the details of the found property into the CIS and would have more details of the owner, it would be the officer at the Loss Counter to contact the owner. Charge 2 13.In the evening on a day in late August 2009, PW5 who was a hawker at the junction of Prince Edward Road West and Portland Street found that a wallet had been left behind by a customer. PW5 checked the contents of the wallet and found that there were some cash consisting of a HK$500 banknote and some HK$20 banknotes, an ID card and a credit card in the wallet. PW5 then took the wallet to the Police Station on the same evening. PW5 handed the wallet to a police officer in the Report Room. In PW5’s presence, the officer took a look at the wallet, checked the items inside, took out the ID card and credit card from the wallet and showed PW5 the ID card and credit card. However, the officer did not take out the cash from the wallet. The officer then made a record on his police notebook and asked PW5 to sign on the notebook. PW5 noticed that there was no reference to the HK$500 banknote or any cash at all in the notebook entry. As PW5 had seen cash in the wallet, he hesitated; but after second thought, he did not say anything to the officer. PW5 simply signed on the notebook and left the Police Station. No receipt was given to PW5. 14.PW2 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 2. Sometime after 7 pm on 26 August 2009, he went to a hawker stall at the junction of Prince Edward Road West and Portland Street to buy a bag. Later in the evening, PW2 received a phone call from Citibank card centre telling him that someone had found his Citibank credit card and that he could collect his credit card from the Police Station. PW2 then realized that his wallet was missing. PW2 went to the Police Station in order to collect his wallet. PW2 was received by a police officer who took out PW2’s wallet from a drawer. PW2 was told to check the items inside the wallet to see if anything was missing. PW2 checked and found that except for a $500 banknote, everything else was inside his wallet. PW2 told the officer of the same. The officer told PW2 that PW2 was lucky that he had just lost $500 but everything else, including his ID card, was inside the wallet. The officer then asked PW2 to sign on a notebook. PW2 testified that the notebook was written with some illegible characters. PW2 did not read the notebook because he had no intention to pursue the missing HK$500. He simply signed on the notebook and left the Police Station. 15.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 2 (Exhibits P7A and P7B) are the two entries marked with the times “2130” and “2150”. At the entry marked with the time “2130”, it was recorded the handing over of the wallet, a credit card and an identity card by PW5. At the entry marked with the time “2150”, it was recorded that PW2 went to the Police Station and signed to acknowledge receipt. The two entries in defendant’s notebook had no mention of money. 16.Paragraphs 201 to 304 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 2. In the interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 3 17.At about 11:24 am on 22 December 2009, PW8 was on board a taxi from Mong Kok to Prince Edward in order to repair an ATM machine at the MTR station in Prince Edward. Whilst PW8 was in the taxi, he found a brown wallet at the rear passenger seat. The wallet contained some $100, $20 and $10 banknotes, some name cards, an identity card and some miscellaneous stuff. PW8 said the wallet was a thick one with slips and money inside. After PW8 had finished repairing the ATM machine at the MTR station, PW8 went to the Police Station to report that he had picked up a wallet. PW8 handed over the wallet to the police officer at the triage reception desk for the officer to check the contents of the wallet. PW8 was not asked to sign anything, nor was he given any receipt to show that he had handed in a wallet. PW8 left the Police Station afterwards. PW8 testified that he was in a hurry to leave the Police Station as he needed to go back to work. 18.PW9 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 3. He left his wallet behind in a taxi which took him from Shatin to Mong Kok on 22 December 2009. At about 10 am that day, he went to the Police Station to make a lost property report. About an hour later, PW9 got a call from the Police Station telling PW9 that someone had found his wallet. PW9 therefore went back to the Police Station to collect his wallet. He found that his identity card, bank cards were in his wallet but money was missing. He testified that when he left his wallet behind in the taxi, there was HK$3,000 consisting of four HK$500 banknotes and ten HK$100 banknotes in his wallet. PW9 told the police officer from whom PW9 collected his wallet that cash was missing. The officer told PW9 that when the wallet was handed over to the Police Station, there was already no money inside the wallet. The officer asked PW9 to sign to acknowledge receipt of his wallet. 19.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 3 (Exhibits P8A and P8B) are the entries marked with the times “1145”, “1210”, “1225” and “1345”. At the entry marked with the time “1145”, it was recorded that PW8 had handed over a wallet containing money, some documents, card(s) and bank card(s) to the defendant for handling. At the entry marked with the time “1345”, it was recorded that PW9 had got back the “relevant property”. 20.Paragraphs 23 to 657 of Exhibit P4D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 3. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 4 21.On the morning of a day in early April 2010, PW11 picked up a wallet in a bus. PW11 found that there were an identity card, student card, a sum of money of $100 odd and some other stuff in the wallet. At about 12:30 pm that day, PW11 went to the Police Station and handed over the wallet to a police officer who was situated at a counter on the right hand side of the Report Room. That officer opened the wallet and checked the contents inside. The officer then wrote something on his notebook but PW11 did not know what that officer had written. PW11 then signed on the notebook and left the Police Station. PW11 testified that although he signed on the notebook, it was difficult to read what was written on that notebook. PW11 testified that he did not know the procedure and how the officer would handle the case. He simply signed on the notebook when that officer asked him to sign. No receipt or acknowledgment was given to PW11. 22.PW10 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 4. He lost his wallet in a bus on the morning of 2 April 2010. There was about $100 odd in his wallet before he lost it. One or two hours after he realized he had lost his wallet, PW10 received a call from a police officer of the Police Station saying that someone had found his wallet and that he could collect it at the Police Station. PW10 therefore went to the Police Station on the afternoon of 2 April 2010. He went to the Report Room and spoke to a uniformed police officer who was sitting at a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. PW10 testified that as soon as he entered the Report Room, that officer had already recognized him and called out his surname Mr. Ip. That officer produced PW10’s wallet and checked the contents of PW10’s wallet in PW10’s presence. Inside his wallet were an identity card, Octopus card and credit cards but no money. PW10 told the officer that money in his wallet was missing. The officer said there was no money inside the wallet when it was taken to the Police Station. PW10 did not pursue the matter and left the Police Station after signing the notebook of that police officer to confirm receipt of his wallet. 23.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 4 (Exhibits P9A and P9B from line 1 of p.4 to line 14 of p.9) are the two entries marked with the times “1340” and “1420”. At the entry marked with the time “1340”, it was recorded that PW11 had handed over a wallet containing PW10’s identity card and “property” to the defendant, and that if the wallet remained unclaimed after 90 days, a letter would be sent to PW11 for claiming the above article. At the entry marked with the time “1420”, it was recorded that PW10 claimed the “above property”, and that after PW10 had counted it, he found no problem. 24.Paragraphs 660 to 919 of Exhibit P4D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 4. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 5 25.At about 5 pm on 12 June 2010 when PW13 was on board a taxi, she found a wallet in the rear passenger seat. She told the taxi driver that she had found a wallet and the taxi driver told PW13 to report to the police herself. PW13 checked the wallet and found that there was an identity card, an Octopus card, travel coupons, some name card, one $500 banknote and one $100 banknote. She went to the Police Station on the same evening. She went to a uniformed police officer seated at a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. She handed over the wallet to that police officer who opened and checked the contents inside the wallet in PW13’s presence. The officer appeared to be writing down the contents of the wallet in his notebook. When he was making record in his notebook, the $500 banknote and $100 banknote were still there. PW13 did not read what the officer had written because the characters he wrote were quite illegible. She nevertheless signed on the notebook and left the Police Station without being given a receipt. PW13 testified that the officer had read out to her what was purportedly written in his notebook. PW13 testified that the officer had read out to her the items she had picked up, including the $600. PW13 testified that she did not know whether what the officer had read out to her was the same as what he had written on his notebook. PW13 agreed that the officer had told her that if no one came to claim the property in 3 months, she could claim it. When it was suggested to her by Mr Loftus that she had told the officer that she would not claim it, PW13 denied having said so. She testified that she understood she had the right to claim it and so she would claim it. 26.According to Exhibit P19, WPC9638 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 7:10 pm on 12 June 2010. At around 7:51 pm on the same day, the defendant handed over a black wallet to her. The wallet contained PW12’s identity card, an Octopus card, two credit cards and a pile of personal documents. The defendant also told WPC9638 that the wallet was handed over to him by PW13. WPC9638 recorded the case in the CIS at 7:52 pm on the same day. In Exhibit P19, there was no mention of money being handed over to WPC9638 by the defendant. 27.PW12 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 5. He lost his wallet in a taxi on 12 June 2010. He had two credit cards, an Octopus card, his HK identity card and cash of about $300 to $700 in his wallet before he lost it. Having realized that he had lost his wallet, he called the card centers to stop any further credit card transactions. On the morning of 14 June 2010, PW12 received a call from the Police Station informing him that he could go to the Police Station to collect his wallet. When he went to the Police Station, it was a woman officer who received him. When he got his wallet back, he found that all money in his wallet was gone. He did not pursue the loss of his money because he was happy that he found his credit cards. 28.The relevant entry in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 5 (Exhibits P9A and P9B) is the entry marked with the time “1935” at which it was recorded that the wallet found by PW13 contained “some property”, identity card, documents etc. It was also recorded that the defendant had explained to PW13 that if no one collected the wallet within three months, the police would notify her to come to collect it but PW13 refused and signed to confirm. 29.Paragraphs 79 to 140 of Exhibit P3D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 5. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 6 30.On 16 June 2010, PW15 found a card-holder in a bus. He opened it and found that there were some cash of about $150 in the form of banknotes, name cards and credit cards in the card-holder. At about 3:45 pm on the same day, PW15 took the card-holder to the Police Station. He approached a male police officer who seated behind a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. He told the officer that he had found a card-holder. The officer took the contents inside the card-holder (including the money) out, and put them on the desk. The officer counted the money in PW15’s presence. It was about $150. The officer made a record in his notebook. PW15 just took a glance at the notebook. PW15 testified that he was able to see that money was recorded in the notebook. He read the notebook briefly and signed on it. 31.PW18 was the owner of the card-holder. He lost it in a bus on 16 June 2010. He had a credit card, his identity card, his China Home Re-Entry Permit, cash of about $100 to $200, some name cards etc in his card-holder before he lost it. At about 4 pm on the same day, PW18 received a call from the police that someone had found his card-holder. PW18 therefore went to the Police Station to collect it. After waiting at the Report Room for a while, a police officer surnamed NG took PW18 to the reception desk. That officer took out the contents of PW18’s card-holder in PW18’s presence. When PW18 checked the contents, he found that his money was missing. PW18 told the officer of the same. The officer told PW18 that when the card-holder was taken to the Police Station, there was already no money inside, and that perhaps someone had taken the money away before the card-holder was taken to the Police Station. 32.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 6 (Exhibits P9A and P9B) are from line 1 of page 96 to line 14 of page 99 with the entries marked with the times “1550” and “1645”. At the entry marked with the time “1550”, it was recorded that the leather case picked up by PW15 contained PW18’s identity card, credit card(s), documents, and a name card. At the beginning in line 1 on page 97 of Exhibit P9A, there were three Chinese characters written before “documents”. Those three Chinese characters preceded “credit card(s)” in the last line on page 96 of Exhibit P9A. In Exhibit P9B, the certified English translation of Exhibit P9A, the three Chinese characters were said to be illegible. (The defendant testified in his evidence-in-chief that the three Chinese characters meant “some money”, but he said he had probably made an error and that he should have written down “something” instead of “some money”.) At the entry marked with the time “1645”, it was recorded that PW18 “counted the above property properly, a record was made in the notebook and he signed to confirm”. 33.Paragraphs 141 to 216 and 581 to 591 of Exhibit P3D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 6. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 7 34.At about 6:45 pm on 26 June 2010, PW14 found a wallet in a bus. She checked the contents inside the wallet and found that there were three $20 banknotes, an identity card, a Hang Seng Bank ATM card and a patient follow-up card. She took the wallet to the Police Station on the same evening. She approached a police officer sitting behind a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. She told the officer that she had found the wallet. In PW14’s presence, the officer took the contents out of the wallet and put them on the desk to count the items. When the officer took the contents out of the wallet and counted the contents, the three $20 banknotes were amongst the items he checked. PW14 testified that the officer appeared to be recording what was found in the wallet, but the officer did not write down the three $20 banknotes. PW14 testified that she signed on the notebook despite no reference of the three $20 banknotes was made in the notebook because she did not know the amount of money and the quantity of banknotes had to be stated clearly. 35.According to Exhibit P21, WPC6646 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 26 June 2010. At 2100 hours on the same day, WPC6646 opened a file to handle a found property case which was passed to her by the defendant who told WPC6646 that the property was handed in by PW14. Thirteen items were passed by the defendant to WPC6646 for further handling but no money was passed by the defendant to WPC6646. 36.PW16 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 7. At about 5:45 pm on 26 June 2010, she had taken a bus. She paid the bus fare by her Octopus card placed inside her wallet. After she had used the Octopus card for payment, she put her wallet in her sports pants. A few days later, she was told by a friend that someone had found her wallet and taken it to the Police Station. She asked her brother PW17 to go to the Police Station to get her wallet back. After PW17 had collected her wallet and returned it to PW16, she found that $60 was missing from her wallet. 37.PW17 collected PW16’s wallet on her behalf from the Police Station. When he collected it from the Police Station and checked the contents of the wallet, there was no money in the wallet. 38.The relevant entry in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 7 (Exhibits P9A and P9B) is from line 7 on page 112 to the end of page 113 with the entry marked with the time “2045” in which it was recorded that the wallet picked up by PW14 contained an identity card of PW16’s, “some name cards and bank cards etc.”. It was also recorded at the entry marked with the time “2055” that he had handed over the property to WPC6646. 39.Paragraphs 507 to 613 of Exhibit P3D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 7. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 8 40.PW26 was a taxi driver. On the afternoon of 26 June 2010, a passenger in the rear seat handed PW26 a wallet saying that he (the passenger) found it on the rear seat. PW26 said there was a buckle on the wallet and it was very tight. He saw the edge of a brown colour banknote in the wallet, but he did not see the denomination of that banknote. When PW26 completed his shift at about 4:30 pm, he took the wallet to the Police Station. He gave the wallet to the police officer at the reception desk. That officer opened the wallet and checked each of the compartments of the wallet. That officer did not take out the banknote from the wallet. PW26 signed on the officer’s notebook but he only took a glance at the notebook before he signed. No receipt was given to PW26 for handing in the wallet. 41.According to Exhibit P20, WPC6646 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 26 June 2010. At 1925 hours on the same day, WPC6646 opened a file to handle a found property case which was passed to her by the defendant who told WPC6646 that the property was handed in by PW26. Fifteen items of found property were passed by the defendant to WPC6646 for further handling but no money was passed by the defendant to WPC6646. 42.Siu was the owner of the wallet in Charge 8. According to Exhibit P25, Siu lost his wallet on 26 June 2010. Amongst other things, he had one $500 banknote, a few $100 banknotes and a few $20 banknotes totaling about $1,000 and an Octopus card in his wallet before he had lost his wallet. He made a report at the Police Station in the early hours of 27 June 2010. On the morning of 27 June 2010, he received a phone call from the Police Station saying that someone had picked up his wallet. He went to collect his wallet at about 6:30 pm on 28 June 2010. When he checked the contents of his wallet, he found that the money of about $1,000 and his Octopus card were missing. 43.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 8 (Exhibits P9A and P9B) are from line 4 on page 110 to line 6 on page 112 with the entries marked with the times “1715”, “1800”, “1900” and “1920”. At the entry marked with the time “1715”, it was recorded that the wallet picked up by PW26 contained Siu’s identity card, “documents, some bank cards, etc.”. It was the defendant’s meal time between 1800 hours and 1900 hours and his duty was relieved by WPC10942. It was recorded at the entry marked with the time “1920’ that “the above property was handed over to WPC6646 …”. 44.Paragraphs 305 to 424 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 8. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 10 45.On the morning of 15 July 2010, PW20 picked up a wallet on the pavement outside Shing Ka House, Kwai Shing East Estate. He found that the wallet contained a student card, a library card, an Octopus card and two or three pieces of $10 or $20 banknotes with a total amount of less than $60 or $70. PW20 then took it to the Police Station in the early afternoon on 15 July 2010. He handed the wallet to a police officer. That officer opened the wallet and took out the contents in front of PW20. When the officer was checking the contents of the wallet, the banknotes were still there. The officer made a record in his notebook but PW20 had no idea of what the officer had written down. The officer appeared to read out the contents of the notebook entry to PW20 but PW20 only listened to what the officer said without looking at the notebook entry; PW20 therefore did not know whether the officer was actually reading out the exact contents contained in the notebook. PW20 signed on the notebook without reading it because the officer did not ask him to read the contents – he only asked PW20 to sign on the notebook. After PW20 had signed on the notebook, he left the Police Station. No receipt was given to PW20. 46.According to Exhibit P22, PC9312 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 15 July 2010. At 1533 hours, the defendant reported to PC9312 that PW20 had found a wallet outside Shing Ka House, Kwai Shing East Estate at about 1330 hours on the same day. PC9312 checked the wallet and found that the wallet contained 8 other items, none of which was money. 47.PW21 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 10. He lost his wallet on 15 July 2010 in Kwai Fong. At 3 pm on the same day, he received a phone call from the Police Station saying that someone had found his wallet. He went to the Police Station to collect his wallet a few days later. He found that about $100 originally in his wallet was missing. 48.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 10 (Exhibits P10A and P10B) are from line 1 on page 13 to line 13 on page 14 with the entries marked with the times “1415” and “1533”. At the entry marked with the time “1415”, it was recorded that the defendant handled PW20’s report of having picked up a wallet in which there were an identity card of PW21, “some documents, three bank cards and a Home Return Card”. At the entry marked with “1533”, it was recorded that the defendant handed “the above property” to PC9312 for handling. 49.Paragraphs 511 to 580 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 10. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 11 50.At about 11 pm on a Saturday in mid-July 2010, PW22 was travelling with her husband on a mini-bus from Peng Shek Estate to Choi Fai Estate. She saw that a female passenger drop her wallet when that passenger was alighting from the mini-bus. PW22 called out loudly to that passenger to get her attention but that passenger did not seem to hear PW22. PW22 therefore picked up that wallet. She checked the contents inside to see if there was information so that she could contact the wallet owner. Inside the wallet she found an identity card, about $100 in $20 banknotes, bank cards and some slips. As PW22 could not reach the wallet owner, she took the wallet to the Police Station the next Sunday. She approached a police officer at a small desk on the right hand side of the Police Station. She handed the wallet to that police officer. When she handed the wallet over to the police officer, the banknotes were still in the wallet. The officer did not take out the contents of the wallet. After PW22 had signed on a piece of paper, she left the Police Station. 51.According to Exhibit P23, PC8959 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 18 July 2010. At 1445 hours on 18 July 2010, the defendant handed over PW23’s identity card, an Octopus card, personal documents, one card cover and one Bank of China card to PC8959 for further handling. It was not mentioned in Exhibit P23 that the defendant had handed over money to PC8959 for handling. 52.PW23 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 11. At about mid-night on 18 July 2010, she took a mini-bus at Peng Shek Estate. She took out her wallet to pay for the bus fare. At about 3:30 pm on 18 July 2010, she realized that her wallet was missing. PW23 testified that before she had lost her wallet, there were an ATM card, an Octopus card, two receipts from ATM machine(s) and cash of about $300 (consisting of one $100 banknote, two $50 banknotes, one $10 banknote and some $20 banknotes) in her wallet. At about 3 pm on 22 July 2010, PW23 received a phone call from the Property Office of the Police Station telling her to collect her wallet from the Police Station. PW23 went to the Police Station at about 4 pm on the same day. She checked the contents of her wallet and found that all money was gone. 53.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 11 (Exhibits P10A and P10B) are from line 12 on page 15 to line 11 on page 17 with the entries marked with the times “1400” and “1500”. At the entry marked with the time “1400”, it was recorded that the wallet contained an identity card of PW23’s and “personalized Octopus card etc.” At the entry marked with the time “1500”, it was recorded that “the above property was handed to PC8959 for handling”. 54.Paragraphs 581 to 642 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 11. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 12 55.At about 3 pm in mid-July 2010 when PW6 was on board a mini-bus from Tsz Wan Shan to Mong Kok, she picked up a wallet. Amongst other things, PW6 found cash of about $180 inside the wallet. She went to the Police Station at about 3:30 pm on the same day. She approached a police officer who was seated at a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. She handed the wallet to that officer who checked the wallet by spreading the contents of the wallet, including the money, onto the desk. Soon afterwards, that officer asked PW6 to sign on his notebook. PW6 signed on the notebook without reading the contents contained therein. PW6 left the Police Station afterwards. No receipt was given to her. 56.PW7 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 12. There were about $150 cash, her identity card, China Home Re-entry permit, HSBC ATM card and a photo in her wallet before she had lost it. After she had realized that she had lost her wallet, she told her father to stop her ATM card. As the items in her wallet were not really valuable, she did not make any lost property report to the police. No one had ever informed her to collect her wallet from the Police Station. She had never got back her wallet from the Police Station. 57.The relevant entry in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 12 is the entry marked with the time “1550” from line 5 on page 32 to line 13 on page 33 in Exhibits P10A and P10B. That entry was part of the defendant’s record for events happened on 25 July 2010. It was recorded at that entry that the wallet contained an identity card of PW7’s. There was no mention of money at that entry. 58.Paragraphs 885 to 1035 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 12. In the interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 13 59.At about 6:50 pm on 7 August 2010, PW24 picked up a wallet outside President Commercial Centre at Nathan Road near Soy Street. He opened the wallet and saw that there were some credit cards, $120 cash, cards, name cards, etc in the wallet. At about 7:25 pm on the same day, he arrived at the Police Station to make a found property report. He reported to the police officer seated at the desk on the right hand side of the Report Room that he had found a wallet. PW24 handed over the wallet to the officer. The officer took everything out of the wallet and put them on the desk to show them to PW24. Amongst other items, there was $120 cash (made up of one $100 banknote and one $20 banknote) shown to PW24. The officer also said there was $120. The officer appeared to record in a notebook of what was found. PW24 only saw part of the officer’s notebook record. When he intended to read the notebook, the officer told PW24 that it was alright/no problem and asked PW24 to sign. PW24 did not read the notebook entry carefully. PW24 also testified that the characters in the notebook entry were quite illegible. 60.According to Exhibit P24, PC10347 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 7 August 2010. At 1952 hours on 7 August 2010, the defendant handed over a wallet, some personal documents, a SIM card, two invoices, a direct debit authorization form, one Bank of China card and one identity card to PC10347 for handling. The defendant told PC10347 that the aforesaid property was picked up by PW24 outside President Commercial Centre. It was not mentioned in Exhibit P24 that the defendant had handed over money to PC10347 for handling. 61.PW25 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 13. He lost his wallet on 7 August 2010. There was $500 (in the form of five $100 banknotes) in his wallet before he lost it. On 9 August 2010, PW25 received a phone call from the Bank of China telling PW25 that he could retrieve his wallet from the Police Station. PW25 went to the Police Station to collect his wallet on the same day. When he got back his wallet from the police, he found that all his $500 was missing. 62.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 13 (Exhibits P10A and P10B) are the two entries marked with the times “1925” and “1952” from line 10 on page 51 to line 13 on page 53. At the entry marked with the time “1925”, it was recorded that the wallet contained PW25’s identity card, “some documents, cards, etc”. There was no mention of money at that entry. At the entry marked with the time “1952”, it recorded that “the above property was handed over to PC10347 for handling and recording”. 63.Paragraphs 922 to 1149 of Exhibit P4D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 13. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 14 64.At about 11:15 am on 11 August 2010 whilst PW28, a then Form 5 student, was walking along a footbridge at Embankment Road near Boundary Street with her two other classmates (one being PW29), she saw a wallet on the footbridge. She picked up the wallet, opened it, looked inside the wallet and saw that there were three or four $100 banknotes, one $500 banknote, some name cards, bank cards and a China Home Re-entry Permit inside the wallet. PW28 did not take the contents out. PW28 and her two other classmates took the wallet to the Police Station to make a found property report. They arrived at the Police Station at about 11:45 am on the same day. They went to the Reception Counter on the right hand side of the Report Room. PW28 told the police officer there that she had picked up a wallet. She placed the wallet on the desk. The police officer took out several cards from the wallet but he did not take out the cash from the wallet. The officer then wrote something on his notebook which was then signed by PW29. No receipt was given to PW28 or her classmates before they left. PW28 testified that between the time when the wallet was picked up on the footbridge and the time when it was handed over to the police officer, nothing was dropped or taken out of the wallet. 65.In cross-examination, PW28 testified inter alia that the wallet was wet when she found the wallet on the footbridge, and that the items taken out by the police officer were wet. It was suggested to PW28 that when the police officer took the items out of the wallet, there were only one $500 banknote and one $100 banknote in the wallet. PW28 disagreed. PW28 also disagreed having told the police officer that she (or they) were in a hurry to go back to school. 66.PW29 was with PW28 and another classmate on the footbridge at the material time. PW29 had looked inside the wallet and found that there were a China Home Re-entry Permit, credit cards, several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes (one of the $500 banknotes was placed in the inner compartment of the wallet). Then the three of them went to the Police Station to make a found property report. The wallet was handed over to the police officer who was on the right hand side of the Report Room. In the presence of PW29 and her two other classmates, the police officer took out the China Home Re-entry Permit and credit cards from the wallet but he did not take out the cash from the wallet. The police officer made a record on his notebook and asked PW29 to sign. PW29 signed on the notebook. PW29 testified that the characters in the notebook entry were very illegible, and that she could only recognize the characters “回鄉證” (meaning “China Home Re-entry permit”). No receipt was given to PW29 or her classmates. PW29 testified that between the time when the wallet was picked up on the footbridge and the time the wallet was handed over to the police officer, nothing was dropped out from the wallet. PW29 testified that when they had picked up the wallet, they took out the China Home Re-entry permit and credit cards from the wallet in order to try to locate the owner. As for the cash inside the wallet, PW29 testified that they had taken a look without taking the cash out of the wallet. 67.In cross-examination, PW29 testified that after PW28 had handed over the wallet to the police officer, the police officer took out part of the items from the wallet. PW29 also testified that after the police officer had written down the record on his notebook, the officer did not read out the notebook entry to them. When asked about whether she had read the notebook entry herself, PW29 testified that because the characters were very illegible, she could only recognize the characters “回鄉證” (meaning “China Home Re-entry permit”). When Mr Loftus suggested to PW29 that in terms of cash, there were only one $500 banknote and one $100 banknote handed over to the police officer, PW29 disagreed. 68.PW27 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 14. He lost his wallet on 11 August 2010. At about 11 am that day, he was on his way to work. When he approached Embankment Road near Boundary Street, it was raining heavily. Because of that, PW27 changed his shoes and took new shoes out of his knapsack on the footbridge. He did not notice anything was missing at that time. At about 12:30 pm on the same day, he got a phone call from a police officer from the Police Station asking whether PW27 had lost his wallet. PW27 then checked his knapsack and found that his wallet was missing. The police officer then told PW27 to go to the Report Room of the Police Station to get his wallet back. PW27 went to the Police Station at about 1 pm on the same day. He was received by the police officer at the enquiry/reception counter on the right hand side of the Police Station. PW27 told that officer who he was and that he wanted to get his wallet back. The officer then produced the wallet from a transparent plastic bag. The items inside the wallet had already been taken out and placed in that transparent plastic bag. The officer asked PW27 to check the items. They were items which had been in PW27’s wallet. When PW27 checked the items, he found that there was $501 (in the form of a $500 banknote and a $1 coin) and some miscellaneous items. PW27 testified that he used to put $500 in an inner compartment of his wallet. PW27 testified that the other cash (of about $4,000 or $4,000 odd in $100 banknotes and $500 banknotes put at the other side of the wallet) was missing. As PW27 found that money was missing, he complained to the police officer. The officer told PW27 that it was already like that when the finder picked up the wallet. PW27 signed on the officer’s notebook to acknowledge receipt of his wallet without writing down that some money was missing. PW27 then left the Police Station. 69.In cross-examination, PW27 testified that when the police officer produced the wallet to PW27, the wallet was not wet. PW27 also agreed that in addition to the $500 banknote and $1 coin, there was also a $100 banknote which was placed in another compartment of his wallet. 70.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 14 (Exhibits P10A and P10B) are the two entries marked with the times “1150” and “1305” from line 14 on page 57 to line 5 on page 61. At the entry marked with the time “1150”, it was recorded that the wallet contained PW27’s identity card, documents, some money and some credit cards. At the entry marked with the time “1305”, it was recorded that PW27 collected the wallet containing cards and “the said property”, and that PW27 “counted that nothing was lost” and signed to confirm. 71.Paragraphs 1152 to 1542 of Exhibit P4D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 14. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
Charge 15 72.PW3 worked as a cleaner at Hang Seng Bank in Nathan Road (the “Bank”). At about noon on 23 August 2010 when PW3 was doing cleaning work near the ATM machines on the ground floor of the Bank, she saw that there was some money at the money-collecting slot at the ATM machine. She took the money to Leung, senior teller of the Bank, told Leung that she had picked up some money at the ATM machine and gave the money to Leung. Leung counted that it was $400 in the form of four $100 banknotes. Leung told PW3 to take the money to the Police Station. PW3 therefore took the $400 to the Police Station by holding the four $100 banknotes with her fingers on her left hand without folding the banknotes up. 73.Having arrived at the Police Station, she told the police officer that she had picked up some money at an ATM machine. The officer asked PW3 how much it was. PW3 said $400. When she told the officer that the amount of money was $400, the money was still in PW3’s hand. PW3 handed the money to the officer who then counted the money. The handing over of the $400 happened before PW3 signed on the officer’s notebook. PW3 confirmed that the signature in lines 12 and 13 on page 85 of Exhibit P10A (i.e. the signature just on top of the entry marked with the time “1444”) was her own signature. As the two initials “杜 (TO)” on lines 2 and 3 on the left margin on page 85, PW3 testified that none of them was her initial. She said she did not make any initial there. PW3 testified that if she was asked to make an initial, she would write down a Chinese character “云 (WAN)” being the last character of her name. PW3 testified that when she signed on that notebook, she did not notice that there was a crossing out of “400” and a replacement of “200” on top of the “400” on line 2 of page 85. After she had signed the notebook, she left the Police Station for the Bank without being given any receipt. 74.When she had returned to the Bank, Leung asked her why she did not get any receipt. Leung then told PW3 to go to the Police Station again to take a receipt. PW3 therefore went back to the Police Station and spoke to the police officer to whom she had handed the money. The officer wrote her a receipt which PW3 in turn passed it to Leung at the Bank. 75.When Mr Ryan asked PW3 whether it was possible that she had dropped some of the money whilst she was on her way to the Police Station, PW3 said it was impossible. She said she had held the money tightly in her hand. 76.During cross-examination on PW3 by Mr Loftus, PW3 testified that:
77.According to Exhibit P16, PC11023 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 23 August 2010. At 1435 hours on the same day, the defendant handed over two $100 banknotes totaling $200 to PC11023 saying that it was picked up by someone. The defendant also wrote on a piece of paper, inter alia, that the finder was PW3. PC11023 then opened a case file with reference number RN10041951 and passed the $200 to the Property Office of the Police Station. 78.Ho withdrew $400 from an ATM machine installed at the Bank at the junction of Prince Edward Road and Nathan Road at 12:04 hours on 23 August 2010: Exhibits P14 and P15. Towards the end of the transaction, she took back her card and a receipt but she forgot to take the $400 from the money-collecting slot. She went to the Bank to make enquiries in the afternoon on the same day. She was told that the Bank would follow up the matter. After leaving her contact information, she left the Bank. On the morning of 24 August 2010, Ho was told by a staff of the Bank that her $400 had been handed over to the Police Station. A police reference number was also given to Ho by that staff. Ho went to the Police Station on the afternoon of 24 August 2010 intending to get her $400 back. Ho was received by WPC56835. Ho told WPC56835 the police reference number but WPC56835 told Ho that the amount of money on police record was not $400. 79.The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 15 (Exhibits P10A and P10B from line 7 on page 84 to line 2 on page 86) are the two entries marked with the times “1215” and “1444”. At the entry marked with the time “1215”, it was recorded that PW3 picked up “some $200” at an ATM machine of Hang Seng Bank and took it to the Police Station to make a report. It is noted from that entry that the “$200” was a correction written on top of a group of deleted figures, that there was an initial on each of lines 1, 2 and 3 on the left margin of page 85, and that the initials on lines 2 and 3 on the left margin of page 85 were both “杜 (TO)”. At the entry marked with the time “1444”, it was recorded that “the above property, $200, was handed over to PC11023 with RN10041951”. 80.Exhibit P2D contains the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and it relates to Charge 15. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:
No case to answer – Charges 1 and 9 81.As the respective owners of the wallets in relation to Charges 1 and 9 did not testify and the prosecution offered no further evidence on Charges 1 and 9, I ruled no case to answer in respect of those two charges. The defendant is therefore acquitted on those two charges. Case to answer – Charges 2 to 8 and 10 to 15 82.In relation to the remaining 13 charges, I found a prima facie case for each of those charges and ruled a case to answer for each of those charges. I will set out my observations on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses later in this judgment. THE DEFENCE CASE 83.In his evidence-in-chief, the defendant testified, inter alai, that:
84.In cross-examination, the defendant testified, inter alia, that:
85.In re-examination, the defendant testified that at all material times, there was CCTV system installed to record activities at the Report Room all round the clock. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE 86.In analyzing evidence in this case, I bear in mind that the defendant is a person of good character and has received various commendations/awards as shown in Exhibits D1 to D4, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and that the standard of proof is beyond all reasonable doubts. I also bear in mind that each of the charges against the defendant must be considered and dealt with separately. The defendant’s evidence 87.I have the following observations on the defendant’s evidence:
In light of my aforesaid observations, I do not find the defendant a credible or reliable witness. 88.I note that the defendant has received a number of commendations and awards as shown in Exhibits D1 to D4:
In evaluating the defendant’s evidence, I have already taken into account the defendant’s good character as well as the commendations and awards he has received. Nonetheless, I maintain my view that the defendant is not a credible or reliable witness. 89.I note the defendant’s evidence that at the end of his shift, he would produce his notebook to the ADO who would read the defendant’s notebook and sign on the notebook. In this connection, I have the following observations:
In short, where there was no record that his notebook entries were checked by any officer, the defendant cannot rely on the argument that his notebook entries were checked by the ADO. Where there were records that his notebook entries were checked by the relevant sergeants, I find that those entries are neither here nor there. 90.The defendant testified that at all material times, there was CCTV system installed to record activities at the Report Room all round the clock. No CCTV footage was produced. I do not need to speculate on the absence of any CCTV evidence. 91.Having carefully considered the defendant’s evidence and in light of my observations as aforesaid, I maintain my view that the defendant is not credible or reliable. I refuse to accept the defendant’s evidence. The prosecution’s evidence 92.Although I have refused to accept the defendant’s evidence, the prosecution still has the burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements in each of the 13 charges laid against the defendant. In this connection, I bear in mind that each of the 13 charges against the defendant has to be considered and dealt with separately. 93.Regarding PW1, I find him an honest and reliable witness and his evidence credible and reliable. I accept PW1’s evidence. I accept that under normal circumstances where either of the officer in charge of the Loss Counter, the “Tai Lau” and the ADO was available, the Report Room Receptionist should direct the property finder to go to the Loss Counter, “Tai Lau’ or the ADO to make a found property report so that details of the found property could be entered into the police computer system, i.e. CIS, and a Pol 68D could be issued to the finder. I accept that it was a deviation from the Police General Order and the general work flow if the Report Room Receptionist handled the found property report himself without entering details of the found property into the police computer system and issuing a Pol 68D to the finder. Nonetheless, I am of the view that such deviation per se does not necessarily infer dishonesty. 94.(i) Regarding PW2, it was not in dispute that when he went to collect his wallet from the Police Station, his $500 was missing. I note that at one stage, PW2 testified that the defendant’s notebook, i.e. Exhibit P7A, had not been shown to him when he collected his wallet from the Police Station on 26 August 2009. When his signature in Exhibit P7A was shown to him, PW2 admitted that the signature on the top of page 3 of Exhibit P7A was his signature. PW2 explained that he had signed on something but he did not remember whether he signed on a piece of paper or on a notebook. He also testified that he had signed without reading the contents of the relevant entry. I accept PW2’s explanation. After all, he admitted having signed on the defendant’s notebook. I do not think PW2’s earlier testimony that the defendant’s notebook had not been shown to him is material discrepancy affecting his credibility or reliability.
95.Cross-examination on PW3 did not reveal anything which rendered PW3’s evidence incredible or unreliable. Having carefully considered PW3’s evidence as a whole, I find PW3’s evidence credible and reliable. I accept PW3’s evidence, including her evidence that she passed four pieces of $100 banknotes to the defendant at the material time and she did not initial on the left margin on page 85 of Exhibit P10A. 96.Cross-examination on PW5 did not reveal anything which rendered PW5’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In this connection, PW5 testified that the wallet contained some cash consisting of a HK$500 banknote and some HK$20 banknotes; but PW5 signed at the defendant’s notebook in which it did not mention that the wallet contained any cash. PW5 explained that he had hesitated to sign on the notebook but after second thought, he did not say anything to the police officer. I accept PW5’s explanation. As an ordinary citizen who did not know how detailed a police notebook entry should be, PW5’s response, i.e. signing on the notebook without questioning the defendant why the defendant omitted to mention cash in the wallet, is understandable. Having carefully considered PW5’s evidence as a whole, I find PW5 a credible and reliable witness. I accept PW5’s evidence. 97.Cross-examination on PW6 did not reveal anything which rendered PW6’s evidence incredible or unreliable. She was adamant that there was about HK$180 in the wallet. I note that PW7, the wallet owner, testified that there was about $150 cash in her wallet; but I do not consider this minor discrepancy between PW6 and PW7’s evidence in this respect material. Having carefully considered PW6’s evidence as a whole, I find PW6 honest and reliable. I accept PW6’s evidence. 98.Cross-examination on PW7 did not reveal anything which rendered PW7’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In examination-in-chief, PW7 testified that she had lost about $150 cash. PW7 testified that she was sure there were a $100 banknote, some $20 banknote and some coins in her wallet before she lost it. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had not made any report to the police of the loss of her wallet because her wallet contained no valuable property; but she disagreed that it was possible that there was no $100 banknote in her wallet. As a girl who could afford to go sing karaoke and have a trip to Taiwan, PW7’s evidence that her wallet contained no valuable property is not inconsistent with her evidence that there was about $150 in her wallet before she lost it. After all, $150 is not a significant amount of money in nowadays’ Hong Kong standard. I also note that PW6 testified that there was about $180 cash in the wallet when she found it; but I do not consider this minor discrepancy between PW6 and PW7’s evidence in this respect material. Having carefully considered PW7’s evidence as a whole, I find PW7 credible and reliable. I accept PW7’s evidence. 99.Cross-examination on PW8 did not reveal anything which rendered PW8’s evidence incredible or unreliable. Having carefully considered PW8’s evidence as a whole, I find PW8 honest and reliable. I accept PW8’s evidence. I say the same in relation to PW10, PW15, PW19 and PW20. I find PW10, PW15, PW19 and PW20 honest and reliable and I accept their evidence. 100.Cross-examination on PW9 did not reveal anything which rendered PW9’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In this connection, I note that PW8 testified that PW9’s wallet contained some $100, $20 and $10 banknotes whilst PW9 testified that when he left his wallet behind in the taxi, there was $3000 consisting of four $500 banknotes and ten $100 banknotes in his wallet. I do not find this discrepancy material. After all, PW9 lost his wallet before 10 am on 22 December 2009 whereas PW8 picked up that wallet at about 11:24 am that day. PW9’s wallet and its contents might have been tampered with by others before PW8 picked up the wallet. Having carefully considered PW9’s evidence, I find PW9 honest and credible. I accept PW9’s evidence. 101.I accept PW11’s explanation as to why she signed on the defendant’s notebook although there was no mention of money in the relevant notebook entry – PW11 testified that she did not know the procedure and how the police officer handled the matter, and that she simply signed on the notebook when the officer told her to sign. As an ordinary citizen who did not know how detailed a police notebook entry should be, PW11’s signing on the notebook without questioning the defendant why the defendant omitted to mention cash in the wallet, is understandable. PW11 was adamant that there was money in the wallet. Having carefully considered PW11’s evidence as a whole, I find PW11 a credible and reliable witness. I accept PW11’s evidence. 102.There were no cross-examinations on PW12, PW16, PW17, PW18, PW21 and PW23. Having carefully considered their evidence individually, I find all of them credible and reliable. I accept their evidence. 103.The notebook entry in relation to Charge 5 (from line 5 on page 91 to line 9 on page 92 of Exhibit P9A) contained no reference of money. Whilst PW13 testified that the officer had read out to her what was purportedly written in his notebook, and that the officer had read out to her the items she had picked up, including the $600, PW13 also testified that she did not know whether what the officer had read out to her was the same as what he had written on his notebook. PW13 explained that she did not read what the officer had written because the characters he wrote were quite illegible. She nevertheless signed on the notebook and left the Police Station. I accept PW13’s explanation. Having carefully considered PW13’s evidence as a whole, I find PW13 credible and reliable. I accept PW13’s evidence. 104.PW14 was cross-examined on why she did not say something to the police officer when the notebook entry was read out to her but there was no mention of money. PW14 answered that it was because it was the first time she had gone to make a report at a police station and she did not know details of the found property had to be stated in the notebook. I accept PW14’s explanation. Having carefully considered PW14’s evidence as a whole, I find PW14 honest and reliable. I accept PW14’s evidence. 105.During cross-examination on PW22, Mr Loftus suggested to her that there was no money in the wallet when she handed over the wallet to the officer. PW22 agreed. Despite PW22 testified in re-examination that there was money inside the wallet when she handed the wallet to the officer, I do not wish to rely on her evidence which was inconsistent in a material particular. I refuse to accept PW22’s evidence. 106.(i) Cross-examination on PW24 did not reveal anything which rendered PW24’s evidence incredible or unreliable. There was no cross-examination on PW25.
107.(i) Cross-examination on PW26 did not reveal anything which rendered PW26’s evidence incredible or unreliable. PW26’s evidence-in-chief that he saw the edge of the brown colour banknote was not challenged in cross-examination. It was never suggested to PW26 that the “brown colour banknote” was not a banknote. Throughout PW26’s evidence, he said it was a banknote, although he did not know the denomination of that banknote.
108.(i) Cross-examination on PW27 did not reveal anything which rendered PW27’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In this connection, I note PW27’s evidence that when he collected his wallet from the Police Station, his wallet was not wet. On the other hand, PW28 testified that the wallet was wet when she found it on the footbridge. Given the fact that the wallet was handed over to the defendant by PW28 and PW29 at 11:50 am and was collected by PW27 at 1:05 pm on the same day, and that when PW27 collected his wallet, the items inside the wallet had been taken out and contained in a transparent plastic bag, I find that between 11:50 am and 1:05 pm, steps must have been taken to dry out the wallet and its contents. I do not find PW27 and PW28’s evidence regarding the state of the wallet, i.e. whether it was wet or not, material to affect their respective credibility or reliability.
109.Cross-examination of PW28 did not reveal anything which rendered PW28’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In this connection, I note PW28 testified that she saw three or four $100 banknotes and one $500 banknote in the wallet whilst PW29 testified that there were several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes (one of the $500 banknote was placed at the inner compartment of the wallet) in the wallet. Indeed, PW27 testified that he had put one $500 in an inner compartment. PW28 said there was one $500 banknote but she did not mention the inner compartment of the wallet. I find that PW28 only mentioned one $500 banknote because she did not notice the $500 banknote placed in the inner compartment of the wallet. As such, PW28’s evidence is not inconsistent with PW29’s evidence regarding the number of $500 banknotes in the wallet. Having carefully considered PW28’s evidence as a whole and compared her evidence with PW29’s evidence regarding the number of $500 banknotes in the wallet, I find PW28 credible and reliable. I accept PW28’s evidence. 110.Cross-examination on PW29 did not reveal anything which rendered PW29’s evidence incredible or unreliable. Having carefully considered PW29’s evidence as a whole and compared her evidence with PW28’s evidence regarding the number of $500 banknotes in the wallet, I find PW29 credible and reliable. I accept PW29’s evidence. 111.The statements made by the defendant in his video-recorded interviews contained in Exhibits P2A, P3A, P4A and P5A (and P2B, P2C, P2D, P3B, P3C, P3D, P4B, P4C, P4D, P5B, P5C and P5D) are mixed statements. In light of my aforesaid observations on the defendant’s evidence, i.e. the inconsistencies between his testimony and his statements made in the video-recorded interviews, I attach no weight to the exculpatory statements made in the video-recorded interviews and I give full weight to the inculpatory statements made in the video-recorded interviews. 112.The relevant notebook entries were referred to in the video-recorded interviews. In light of my aforesaid observations on the defendant’s evidence and his video-recorded interviews, I attach no weight to the exculpatory statements made in the relevant notebook entries and I give full weight to the inculpatory statements made in the relevant notebook entries. 113.Exhibits P12 to P25 were admitted by virtue of section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221. The defence did not cross-examine any of the statement makers. I give full weight to each of those statements. In relation to Exhibits P19 to P24 in which there was no mention of money being handed over by the defendant to the officer in charge of the Loss Counter at the material time, I find that the defendant did not hand over any money to the relevant officer in charge of the Loss Counter at the material time. In relation to Exhibit P16, I find that the defendant only handed over two $100 banknotes to PC11023. THE LAW 114.According to section 2(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210, a person commits theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. 115.In determining whether the defendant was acting dishonestly, I bear in mind the principle laid down in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053. CONCLUSION Charge 11 116.As I have refused to rely on PW22’s evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove that when PW22 handed in the wallet to the defendant, there was money in the wallet. As such, I acquit the defendant on Charge 11. The remaining charges in general 117.In relation to Charges 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14, I find that in the respective found property reports in his notebooks, the defendant deliberately and dishonestly omitted to record the existence of cash contained in the respective wallets and the amounts of cash because he dishonestly intended to appropriate the cash in each of the aforesaid charges. In this connection, I do not accept that the defendant was in such a hurry or so busy that he could not count the actual amount of money he had received from the finder and jot it down in his notebook. If there were just a few banknotes/coins in the wallet, it did not take long for the defendant to count the actual amount of money and jot it down in his notebook. If there were a large number of banknotes/coins in the wallet, there was all the more reason for the defendant to record in the notebook clearly and accurately how much money it was in the wallet. I say the above regardless of whether there is any Police General Order or regulations governing the procedures a police officer has to follow when handling a found property report. 118.In relation to Charges 3 and 6, the respective found property reports in the defendant’s notebooks mentioned that money was contained in the wallets but the amounts of money were not specified. I find that the defendant deliberately and dishonestly omitted to specify the amounts of money found in the respective wallets so that at a later stage when he returned the wallets to the respective owners, i.e. PW9 and PW18, he could lie about the amount of money he had received from the respective finders. For the same reasons as I mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I do not accept that the defendant was in such a hurry or so busy that he could not count the actual amount of money he had received from the finder and jot it down in his notebook. 119.In relation to Charge 15, I find that the defendant deleted the figure “400” and replaced it with “200” on line 2 on page 85 of Exhibit P10A in the absence of PW3 because he dishonestly intended to appropriate $200 from the $400 handed over to him by PW3. Charge 2 120.I find that when PW5 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia a $500 banknote. About 20 minutes later, when PW2 came to collect his wallet from the defendant, he found his $500 was missing. I find that between the time when PW5 handed in the wallet containing inter alia $500 to the defendant and the time when PW2 collected his wallet from the defendant, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the $500 was missing when PW2 collected his wallet because the money was appropriated by the defendant, and that the defendant appropriated the $500 dishonestly. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 2. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 2. Charge 3 121.I find that when PW8 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia some $100, $20 and $10 banknotes. About 2 hours later when PW9 came to collect his wallet from the defendant, he found money was missing from his wallet. I find that between the time when PW8 handed in the wallet to the defendant and the time when PW9 collected his wallet from the defendant, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the money was missing from the wallet when PW9 collected his wallet because the money was appropriated by the defendant, and that the defendant appropriated the money dishonestly. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 3. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 3. Charge 4 122.I find that when PW11 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia a sum of money of $100 odd. About 40 minutes later, when PW10 came to collect his wallet from the defendant, he found his money was missing from his wallet. I find that between the time when PW11 handed in the wallet containing inter alia $100 odd to the defendant and the time when PW10 collected his wallet from the defendant, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the $100 odd was missing when PW10 collected his wallet because the money was appropriated by the defendant, and that the defendant appropriated the $100 odd dishonestly. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts that the defendant, on 2 April 2010, at the Police Station, stole cash of about $100, the property belonging to PW10. To the extent that the defendant stole cash of about $100 belonging to PW10, I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved all the requisite elements required in Charge 4. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 4 to the extent that the defendant stole cash of about $100 belonging to PW10. Charge 5 123.I find that when PW13 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia $600. About 16 minutes later, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to WPC9638, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW11 handed in the wallet containing inter alia $600 to the defendant (at 19:35 hours) and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to WPC9638 (at 19:51 hours), the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the $600 was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to WPC9638 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 5. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 5. Charge 6 124.I find that when PW15 handed in the card-holder to the defendant, the card-holder contained inter alia cash of about $150. About 55 minutes later, when PW18 came to collect his card-holder from the defendant, he found his money was missing from his card-holder. I find that between the time when PW15 handed in the card-holder containing inter alia cash of about $150 to the defendant and the time when PW18 collected his card-holder from the defendant, the card-holder was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that cash of about $150 was missing when PW18 collected his card-holder because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 6. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 6. Charge 7 125.I find that when PW14 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia $60. About 10 minutes later, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to WPC6646, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW14 handed in the wallet containing inter alia $60 to the defendant (at 20:45 hours) and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to WPC6646 (at 20:55 hours), the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the $60 was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to WPC6646 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 7. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 7. Charge 8 126.I find that at 17:15 hours when PW26 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia a brown colour banknote. About 2 hours and 5 minutes later at 19:20 hours, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to WPC6646, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW26 handed in the wallet containing a brown colour banknote to the defendant and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to WPC6646, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the money in the wallet was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to WPC6646 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 8. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 8. Charge 10 127.I find that at 14:15 hours when PW20 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia two or three pieces of $10 or $20 banknotes with a total amount of less than $60. About 1 hour and 18 minutes later at 15:33 hours, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to PC9312, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW20 handed in the wallet containing two or three pieces of $10 or $20 banknotes with a total amount of less than $60 to the defendant and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to PC9312, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the money in the wallet was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to PC9312 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts that the defendant, on 15 July 2010, at the Police Station, stole cash of about $60, the property belonging to PW21. To the extent that the defendant stole cash of about $60 belonging to PW21, I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved all the requisite elements required in Charge 10. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 10 to the extent that the defendant stole cash of about $60 belonging to PW21. Charge 12 128.I find that when PW6 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia cash of about $180. I find, as testified by PW6, the defendant did check the contents of the wallet by spreading the contents onto his desk and see that there was cash of about $180. I find that in the found property report in his notebook, the defendant deliberately omitted to record the existence of cash contained in the wallet and the amount of cash because he dishonestly intended to appropriate the cash in Charge 12. The owner of the wallet, PW7, testified that since she had lost her wallet at the material time, no one had ever informed her to collect her wallet from the Police Station and she had never got back her wallet. In the defendant’s notebook, there is no entry recording how he disposed of the wallet after his receipt of the same from PW6. I draw the only irresistible inference that cash of about $180 contained in the wallet handed over to the defendant by PW6 was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 12. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 12, i.e. theft of $150. Charge 13 129.I find that at 19:25 hours when PW24 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia $120 cash. About 27 minutes later at 19:52 hours, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to PC10347, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW24 handed in the wallet containing $120 cash to the defendant and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to PC10347, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the money in the wallet was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to PC10347 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 13. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 13. Charge 14 130.I find that at 11:50 hours when PW28 and PW29 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes. About 1 hour and 15 minutes later, when PW27 came to collect his wallet from the defendant, he found that save for $601, the rest of his money originally in his wallet was missing. I find that between the time when PW28 and PW29 handed in the wallet containing inter alia several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes to the defendant and the time when PW27 collected his wallet from the defendant, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that some cash of Hong Kong currency was missing when PW27 collected his wallet because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 14. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 14. Charge 15 131.I find that at 12:15 hours on 23 August 2010, PW3 handed in four pieces of $100 banknotes to the defendant. About 2 hours and 29 minutes later at 14:44 hours on the same day, the defendant only handed over $200 to PC11023. I find that between the time when PW3 handed in the four pieces of $100 banknotes to the defendant and the time when the defendant handed over $200 to PC11023, the four pieces of $100 were kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that $200 was not handed over to PC11023 because the $200 was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 15. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 15.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 201/2011