HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

WONG CHUNG MING v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
6217-EN-1968-11-25

WONG CHUNG MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000641/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 641 OF 1968

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

 

BETWEEN
WONG CHUNG MINGAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 25 November 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant was charged under s.49(1)(a) of the Larceny Ordinance with robbery. The alleged victim gave evidence that the appellant and another man came up to him and asked if he had any money. The victim said that he had not, whereupon the men said that if he did not have money they would take his wrist watch. The victim then handed over a sum of $5 in cash. At than moment a passing police patrol stopped and the officers alighted from their car, went up to this group of persons and identified themselves. The second man ran away and although the police gave chase he escaped. The appellant was arrested. The police officers gave corroborative evidence. There was also put in evidence a statement made by the appellant and he himself made an unsworn statement from the dock. His statement to the police was in part consistent with his unsworn statement. His evidence was that he saw the victim and the other man in the street and approached them: at that moment the police arrived and the other man ran away. In his statement he said that he was walking with the other man.

2. The whole case turned upon the question whether the magistrate believed the prosecution witnesses. He did believe them and I see no reason to disagree with his conclusion. There was ample evidence upon which to convict the appellant and this appeal must be dismissed.

 

25th November, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Sharatte for the Respondent