HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1992

THE QUEEN v. LAM KWOK YING

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
34905-EN-1992-10-22

THE QUEEN v. LAM KWOK YING

HTML content

HCMA000604/1992

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 604 OF 1992

___________

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN
AND
LAW KWOK YING

____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Leonard in Court

Date of Hearing: 22 October 1992

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 22 October 1992

 

__________________________

REASONS  FOR  DECISION

___________________________

 

1. These are my reasons for allowing this appeal.

2. The Appellant was convicted after trial by a magistrate of the theft of certain garments from a department store. She gave evidence in her own defence but that evidence was rejected by the magistrate. The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence.

3. In her Statement of Findings, the magistrate made certain criticisms of the appellant's story and then she said :

"    Apart from my observations in para. 34-36, judging from the demeanour of the defendant in giving evidence in Court, I could not accept her evidence as credible even on a balance of probability."

4. The appellant was under no obligation to give evidence. When she chose to give evidence, she was under no obligation to prove anything.

5. The magistrate's remark unfortunately suggests that she may have treated the appellant's evidence as being required to meet some standard of proof amounting at least to proof on a balance of probabilities. In the circumstances the conviction was unsafe. I therefore allowed the appeal and ordered that the conviction and sentence be set aside.

(D.J. Leonard)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. Patrick LI S.C.C. for Crown

Mr. K.B. Egan inst'd by M/S Y.T. Wong & Co. for Appellant