PUN CHI MING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000781/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 781 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN
	PUN CHI MING	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 1st December, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant appeals against a conviction for robbery. The evidence of CHAN Foon was that at 12:15 a.m. on 18th September he was with his girl friend and had just come out of a noodle shop, where they had been having a snack: three men (strangers) then came up to him and one of them said that he owed him money: when he replied that he did not know the man at all and could not owe him money, he was pushed into a dark corner of the street: there he was pushed in the face by somebody and someone else grabbed his neck and a fountain pen and wrist-watch were taken from him. The girl, he says, shouted but he was unable to shout: a detective then came up and the three men fled: one of them was arrested and was found to be the Appellant. CHAN Foon said it was the Appellant, the tallest of the three, who held him by the neck. Nothing turns upon identification in this case because the appellant admits that he was involved in a struggle with CHAN Foon. The girl corroborated CHAN Foon's evidence, and the detective and another constable gave evidence which supported their story in that they said they saw the three men running and the Appellant was arrested. There was, however, this distinction between the evidence of the detective and the other two, that the detective said he heard a man shouting "snatching" whereas the girl says that she was the one who shouted and that she shouted "save life", that evidence being consistent with the evidence of CHAN Foon.

2. The story of the Appellant was that he was walking with some friends when they saw CHAN Foon and one of his friends said that CHAN Foon owed him money. According to the Appellant this friend was the sort of man who did not like a quarrel and therefore the Appellant took it upon himself to go and demand the money from CHAN Foon: another of the party waited with him, as he said,

"in case something happened. I was afraid something would happen - that a fight might ensure. I was prepared to go into it in expectation that there might he a fight."

The Appellant's story continues to the effect that CHAN Foon used foul language when he was accessed, that they abused each other and that a struggle then developed. He said that all the prosecution witnesses were lying and that the third witness, the detective, in particular was lying when he said that the Appellant was running away - and that also went for the fourth witness, the police constable.

3. The learned magistrate considered the evidence in detail. He commented on the fact that although the Appellant alleges that this was a perfectly lawful demand for money which was being made no one at all appeared to support him in his evidence. If a debt existed some evidence of it might reasonably be expected. The magistrate came to the conclusion that the defence story was untrue. He was satisfied that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt and I think there was ample evidence to justify his conclusion.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

 

1st December, 1972.

 

Representation: