HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1994

R. v. DANG QUANG MINH

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
6086-EN-1995-04-13

R. v. DANG QUANG MINH

HTML content

CACC000624/1994

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 624
(Criminal)

____________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
DANG QUANG MINHApplicant

____________

 

Coram: Hon Power, V.-P., Mayo, J.A. and Stuart-Moore, J.

Date of hearing: 13 April 1995

Date of judgment: 13 April 1995

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the court):

1. The applicant was one of three Vietnamese men who were apprehended by the police on the evening of 7 April 1994 on suspicion of their involvement in burglary of a restaurant at Yu Chau Street, Kowloon.

2. The facts are very simple. An independent witness who was at the premises in question heard the sounds of someone attempting to break and enter the premises. He telephoned the police and a number of police officers arrived at the scene.

3. One of the other men the 3rd defendant in the proceedings was then attempting to prise open the iron gate of the premises. The applicant and the other man were standing nearby holding iron bars.

4. The men were arrested and cautioned and they all admitted that they were attempting to burgle the restaurant.

5. The applicant in his grounds of appeal states that "there were too many doubts in the case and that the oral statements from the police did not spell out the truth."

6. At his trial it would appear that the applicant did give evidence the basis of which was a police conspiracy to frame him.

7. Before us he repeated what he says he told the trial judge namely that he had been framed by the police and assaulted.

8. We can see no reason to disagree with the conclusion which was reached by the trial judge. There is no reason whatever to believe that this conviction was in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory and accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

(N.P. Power)(Simon Mayo)(M. Stuart-Moore)
Vice PresidentJustice of AppealJudge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr D.G. Saw, SACP, for Crown Prosecutor

Applicant - Dang Quang Minh in person/present