HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1983

THE QUEEN v. HO HOI

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
5677-EN-1983-06-27

THE QUEEN v. HO HOI

HTML content

CACC000576/1983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 1983

_________________

 

Between

The Queen

Respondent

and
Ho HoiAppellant
___________________

Coram: Hon. Penlington, J. in Court

Date: 27th June, 1983

 

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. The magistrate has heard the witnesses of whom there were only two and he was of the view that he could accept the evidence given by the Police Constable and he said he did not accept that of the appellant. There are, however, some aspects of that evidence which cause me concern. The Constable says he was observing that the defendant in the distance of about 10 feet. He said he saw him approached a woman, use his right hand to unzip the zipper of her handbag and put his hand inside. On seeing this he went towards the defendant, who then let go of the bag and walked away. That being so, it seems to me he must have apprehended him only a very short distance away. He said that he apprehended the appellant and searched him and he then took him back to look for the victim, without success.

2. This means of course that there was no evidence at all from the woman with the handbag. The other aspect to the matter which caused me some concern was that although he was kept in custody, he was not told of the charge by the Duty Inspector until the next day.

3. I have a doubt about this matter; It may be the appellant is very fortunate, but I am not satisfied that this conviction is safe and the appeal will be allowed, the conviction will be quashed and the fine, if paid, be remitted.

(R.G. Penlington)

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Miss Crebbin, Counsel for the Crown/Respondent.

Appellant in person.