FUNG WONG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC001230/1977
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| Criminal Appeal | |
| 1977 No. 1230 |
| BETWEEN | ||
| FUNG Wong | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| The Queen | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.A.
Date of Judgment: 28th November 1977.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This Appellant was convicted on a charge of theft and he appeals against his conviction. At the sitting of the court he applied for an adjournment so that he could engage a solicitor but counsel for the Crown thereupon indicated to me that he did not feel able to support the conviction. After some discussion with him I have likewise come to the conclusion that this appeal ought to be allowed, and the conviction is quashed.
2. The case was one of an alleged theft from a Japanese tourist. The case came before the magistrate's court on the very day that the Japanese tourist and the other principal witness (another Japanese tourist) were due to leave the Colony. A solicitor who appeared on behalf of the Defendant applied for an adjournment but the learned magistrate thought that the interests of justice required that he should proceed at least to take the evidence of these two witnesses. The solicitor indicated that he had no instructions to act for the Defendant upon his trial and asked leave to withdraw. The record does not show whether that application was granted. Of more importance, the record does not show who, if any one, represented the Crown in the proceedings. It appears at one point as if the magistrate addressed a "prosecutor" but it also appears that the magistrate asked some questions which clearly ought to have been asked by a prosecutor and not by the court. There are, indeed, many passages in the notes of evidence which do not appear to make sense and, whether these are due to poor interpretation or the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence itself, I think clarification was essential. While it cannot be said that there was no evidence upon which the learned magistrate could be satisfied that the Appellant stole the tourist's purse and while I will assume, despite some ambiguity in the record, that the magistrate was not informed before verdict that the Appellant had six prior convictions, I am reluctantly forced to agree that the conviction is unsatisfactory and ought not to stand.
28th November 1977.
Representation: