KAN YIU CHEONG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000664/1972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 664 OF 1972
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| KAN YIU CHEONG | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 31st October, 1972.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The Appellant was charged on seven charges before the magistrate, two of blackmail, one of theft, three of impersonating a police officer and one of obtaining property by deception. The charges related to three separate incidents, all of them connected with alleged attempts to obtain money from drivers of motor vehicles.
2. The Appellant is an auxiliary police officer. He has not, it appears, been on duty for some months, but the important thing is that he was not on duty on any of the three dates in question. What is alleged is that he accepted a lift from the drivers of motor-cars who ought not to have been carrying passengers for hire or reward and then threatened to charge them with an offence. As a result of the threats expressed or implied he obtained money or valuables from these persons. That is the substance of the case against him.
3. His Notice of Appeal alleges that evidence was improperly admitted or rejected and that there was no evidence or no sufficient evidence whereon to found the conviction. In the event he concedes that it is the latter which is the real basis of his appeal.
4. I do not propose to go through the evidence in detail. The learned magistrate in a characteristically careful and exhaustive judgment reviewed the evidence and considered all the legal issues involved. Having read the papers I am satisfied that there was ample evidence upon which to found convictions on each of these charges. What the Appellant is, in reality, complaining about is that that evidence was believed and his own evidence was disbelieved. It was for the learned magistrate to weigh the evidence and to decide whether he was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the Prosecution's story was true. In relation to each of the charges he was fully satisfied that the Prosecution's story was true, and in respect of five of the charges he reached his conclusion "without hesitation or doubt". I have no reason to believe that he came to a wrong conclusion in respect of any of these charges.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
31st October, 1972.
Representation: