HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1985

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN MAN

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
40247-EN-1985-04-12

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIN MAN

HTML content

HCMA000246/1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 246 OF 1985

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

and

 

CHAN KIN MAN

Appellant

________

Coram: Hon. Liu J.

Date of Hearing: 12th April 1985

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 12th April 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. You were kept under surveilance by a police officer and you were observed to be touching pockets on two occasions. You were caught away from the Off-Course Betting Centre and brought back to the police station at which you admitted the offence of loitering.

2. All this evidence was given by the police officer and weighed by the learned Magistrate. The leaned Magistrate accepted the evidence of the police officer and he rejected your explanation for the confession that you had made.

3. Today, you have repeated virtually the same evidence as that given before the learned Magistrate. You would appreciate that the learned Magistrate had the advantage of cross-examination and he had an ample opportunity of observing your demeanour and that of the police officer. I do not enjoy that advantage. I have a mere repetition of the evidence given before the learned Magistrate.

4. My duty is to ascertain whether in law and/or on fact the learned Magistrate's findings and conclusions could be faulted and whether there is any other matters that you can bring it to my attention that would cast some lurking doubt, as it were, on the conclusion reached by the trial Magistrate.

5. As I have said you repeated before me virtually the whole of the evidence before the learned Magistrate, and matters in this appeal are confined to just that. I have explained to you the very clear, concise and careful Statement of Findings of the learned Magistrate. There is nothing from what you have said or the records of appeal that warrants the faulting of any part of that Statement of Findings.

6. You may feel slightly disturbed because, as you said, you have no previous convictions of pick-pocketing, but you can rest assured, as it appears on the records of appeal, that all your assertions were carefully examined by the learned Magistrate. I can find nothing lacking in the Statement of Findings of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, your appeal has to be dismissed, and I dismiss it.

(B. Liu)

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. J.L. Abbott, Crown Prosecutor, for the Respondent.

Chan Kin Man, Appellant - in person.