Cheung Wong Yau v. The Queen
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 834 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, McMullin and Pickering, JJ. ----------------------------- JUDGMENT ----------------------------- Huggins, J.: 1. This is about as impudent an appeal as one could expect to meet. The Appellant appeals against conviction and sentence on a charge of robbery. His application for leave to appeal on both conviction and sentence was refused by the single judge. The Appellant has, however, renewed his application to this Court as he is entitled to do. 2. The evidence was brief. A man and a woman were in Morse Park when they were attacked from behind by somebody who was identified as the Accused. The robbery was seen by police officers who were in hiding in the park. 3. The Appellant put to the prosecution witnesses a story which suggested that the police and the two victims had conspired together to fabricate the whole case against him. He did not, however, go into the witness-box. He has repeated this allegation in this Court. 4. We see no reason to believe that there is one word of truth in his story, but in any event the evidence of the prosecution was believed by the learned judge and it is impossible for us to say that he came to the wrong conclusion. 5. The Appellant was sentenced to 3½ years’ imprisonment. He has a long record from 1964 onwards. He was put on probation and was in breach of his probation: he was sent to a training centre: he has served sentences of imprisonment on three previous charges of robbery and other charges of larceny and similar offences. He says himself that he had been out of prison for only one month when he committed this further offence. We see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the sentence passed. 6. The applications are refused and the time spent in prison pending the appeal will not count towards his sentences. 13th February, 1973 |