HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1986

THE QUEEN v. WOO TAT MING

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
35277-EN-1986-11-20

THE QUEEN v. WOO TAT MING

HTML content

HCMA001047/1986

IN THE SUPREME COURT
MAGISTRACY APPEAL

1986 No.1047
(Criminal)

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

 

AND

 

WOO Tat-ming

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date: 20 November 1986

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence by WOO Tat-ming ("D.1"), who was convicted of four offences, one of possession of an offensive weapon, one of resisting arrest and two of theft. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, concurrent, on the possession of offensive weapon and resisting arrest charges and to three months' imprisonment on each of the two theft charges, these to be concurrent but consecutive to the six month's imprisonment, making a total of nine months.

2. On 27th June, 1986, a police officer ("P.W.1") saw D.1 acting suspiciously. He stopped and searched him and found in his right-hand trouser pocket an orange knife and a silver coloured necklace. When P.W.1 questioned him, D.1 pushed him and ran away. He was recaptured shortly afterwards following a chase and a struggle.

3. After his arrest, D.1 was taken to the police station where various statements were taken from him. These were admitted in evidence, although D.1 complained that they had been obtained from him by pressure and threats. In these statements, he volunteered information that he had committed the two thefts, of which he was subsequently convicted, by stealing goods from a fruit stall and a food stall.

4. D.1 gave evidence, denying that he had been carrying the knife at the time of his arrest and alleging that he had not committed the thefts but had only signed the supposed cautioned statements after he had been assaulted by two police officers, including P.W.1.

5. The magistrate believed the police witnesses and rejected the evidence given by D.1 both on the voir dire and on the general issues. He sets out his reasons for this and they justify his conclusion.

6. There are no grounds on which I could interfere with his findings and the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

7. The sentence imposed for possession of an offensive weapon is the minimum prescribed by law. The sentences of three months' each on the two charges of theft are entirely proper, bearing in mind that D.1 is 38 and he has 22 previous convictions, including two for theft, one for resisting arrest and one for possession of an offensive weapon.

8. The appeal against sentence is also dismissed.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Mr. A.A. Bruce, Senior Crown Counsel, for Crown.