THE QUEEN v. LAU TING KWOK

CACC000425/1988

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	No 425 of 1988
	(Criminal)

 

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN
	AND
	LAU TING KWOK	Applicant

____________________

Coram: Hon. Yang, C.J., Cons, V.-P. & Hunter, J.A.

Date of hearing: 10 May 1989

Date of judgment: 10 May 1989

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

Hunter, J.A.:

1. On 15th August 1988 Deputy Judge Toh found the applicant guilty on 2 counts of wounding with intent and on one count of resisting a police officer, in the execution of his duty.

2. A number of general grounds of appeal were advanced by way of criticism of the judge's conclusion on the first charge, which related to the wounding of Lam Ting Wan who became PW1 in the case. The second charge related to Chan Tsang Kwong who became PW2 in the case. It was advanced by way of written grounds, but not developed in argument, that there were no grounds for the judge making the findings of fact which she did. There is nothing in this argument at all. In the course of her reasons for decision she says :

"I find PW1 a most impressive witness. He acted courageously that night in saving his friend PW2 and I accept his evidence without hesitation that the defendant was one of the men who chopped and wounded him and PW2 that night".

All the evidence was before her and there is no basis on which those conclusions can be challenged.

3. The one matter which has been developed in argument is that it is submitted that there was insufficient evidence before her upon which she could conclude that any wound was inflicted upon PW2. The evidence in relation to that was this that three men came into the restaurant when PW1 and PW2 were paying their bill. They were all carrying what were described as "beef knives" which were something like one foot long. One of the men struck PW2 on the left shoulder. As a result of this he ran away and afterwards obtained assistance from a friend at the restaurant who bandaged him up. He then attended hospital, where in the terms of the report before the Court he was said to have suffered "a three centimetre superficial laceration on the left shoulder". In our view there was quite sufficient evidence before the judge to conclude that there, had been in the language used in paragraph 20-140 of Archbold "a break in the continuity of the skin". That is sufficient to constitute a wound, and there is no substance in this point either.

4. For these reasons the application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

Representation:

Ernest Lin (DLA) for Applicant

A A Bruce for Crown/Respondent