HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1970

NG CHUN-TING 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
3264-EN-1970-07-20

NG CHUN-TING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000340/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 340 OF 1970

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

BETWEEN
NG Chun-tingAppellant
AND
The QueenRespondent

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

Coram: Mills-Owens, J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 20 July 1970

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant appeals against conviction on charges of (A) Being a suspected person found loitering with intent to steal and (B) Possession of an offensive weapon, a scout-knife. The evidence was that in fact the appellant made an attempt to steal a handbag carried by a young woman who was accompanied by a young man. The learned magistrate did not remark upon the nature of the charges, nor upon the fact that neither of the young couple was called as a witness. Further, although there were two police officers keeping the appellant under observation the evidence of one was merely to the effect that he was on duty with the other police officer, saw the appellant at the scene and saw him arrested by the other police officer. Presumably, however, the intention of the prosecution was to make the second police officer available for cross-examination by the appellant. In the event the appellant merely put the question to this officer that he was lying, which the officer denied. In such circumstances, in my view, particularly as the appellant was unrepresented, it would have been better if the magistrate had indicated to the appellant, and recorded that he had done so, that the witness was available for cross-examination as to the details of the alleged offences; otherwise the impression might be given that the Court was already satisfied on the evidence of the one witness.

2. On a consideration of the whole of the evidence, including that of the appellant, however, I am unable to say that the conviction cannot stand and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

 

(Mills-Owens J.)

 

20th July, 1970.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Lucas (Senior Crown Counsel) for Respondent.

Oral judgment reduced into writing.