LAM YUK MING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000659/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 659 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
	LAM YUK MING	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 26 November 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant was convicted of unlawful pawning. Wong Nuen-hang gave evidence that the appellant asked him to borrow his gold finger ring and that the reason the appellant gave him was that he wanted to wear it to meet his girl friend. He said that upon the appellant's promise to return it the same evening at about 10 p.m., he agreed to lend it. He affirmed that he never gave the appellant permission to pawn the ring. The appellant put no questions to Wong Nuen-hang and as I read his own evidence he admitted that he did not obtain consent before pawning the ring.

2. I confess that I am far from happy with the state of the record, although it was ceritified by the magistrate himself. I have had many inaccurate copies of records put before me in the past but never before have I had a record from which even the charge itself has been omitted. The form in which the appellant's evidence was recorded leaves much to be desired: the record runs (sic): "Indeed, I have not obtain his consent before I pawned P.1 After I had pawn, it. I told P.W.1 about it and I promised to redeem the ring (P1) some how some day." The findings of the learned magistrate put two matter much more clearly. The magistrate says the appellant admitted that Wong was his close friend and that he did not obtain his consent before he pawned the ring. However he told Wong Nuen-hang later about the pawning and promised to redeem it some how some day. Later he said that when he told Wong that he had pawned the ring Wong raised no objection. It is quite apparent, therefore, that the learned magistrate understood the evidence of the appellant to be that the appellant pawned it without consent - and that was, of course, exactly what Wong Nuen-hang had said.

3. Before me the appellant has sought to explain that at what he told the magistrate was that he did not obtain permission to pawn the ring on the day he pawned it but that he obtained permission at the time he borrowed the ring. As I have said, this suggestion was certainly never put to Wong Nuen-hang and I think it is clear that this is not what the appellant said at the trial: this is something he has thought up since and it is something which I am not prepared to believe.

4. There was ample evidence to justify a conviction and the appeal is dismissed.

 

26th November, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Alexander for the Respondent