CHAN WAI-KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000232/1978

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	1978 No. 232
	(Criminal)

 

BETWEEN:
	CHAN WAI-KEUNG	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins, J.A. and Leonard, J.

Date of Judgment: 18th October, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of robbery and wounding with intent and sentence to five years' imprisonment on the robbery charge and six and a half years' imprisonment on the wounding charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant appeals against his conviction and sentences.

2. The only evidence against the appellant came from the victim. When giving evidence, his story was that at about 5 o'clock in the morning he was bicycling towards his hawker's stall when he was stopped by six persons, one of whom was the appellant. The victim said that he knew the six persons, including the appellant, by their nicknames. One of them took $150 from the victim's pocket and this fell to the ground. The victim thereupon ran off shouting "robbery". He was chased by the appellant and another of the robbers, both of whom carried knives. They attacked the victim, who warded off a blow aimed at his head with his hand which was very severely injured. The victim managed to escape and he said he saw a police constable and his younger brother who took him to hospital in a taxi. He added that he had known the appellant for some ten years.

3. Part of the evidence of this witness was a statement given to the police when he was in hospital later on the same day as the attack. In answer to certain questions the victim said that he had not lost any money at the scene of the crime and, further, that as it was dark he could not identify the persons who had attacked him. He further said that he did not suspect any person of attacking him. These answers are in direct contradiction to the evidence which he gave in the witness box. The appellant was living in the same block of the housing estate in which the victim was then living. It was not until six and a half months after the attack on the victim that he identified the victim as being one of his assailants.

4. In addition, the victim's description of the details of the attack given in his statement to the police differed materially from those stated by him when giving evidence at the trial.

5. These inconsistencies were referred to by the trial judge in his reasons for verdict. And he had the inestimable advantage of seeing and hearing the witness (the victim) testify in the witness box. But the victim was the only witness implicating the appellant. The inconsistencies in his testimony are so blatant that we do not think that the verdict can stand. Any conviction based on such evidence which is uncorroborated must be unsafe and unsatisfactory. We have no alternative other than to quash the conviction and set aside the sentence.

 

 

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

 

Representation:

Sanguinetti (John Ip & Co.) for Appellant

Maxwell for the Crown/Respondent