HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1994

R. v. KWONG NIM YAN

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
32058-EN-1995-02-16

R. v. KWONG NIM YAN

HTML content

HCMA001375/1994

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1375 OF 1994

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

______________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
KWONG NIM YANAppellant

______________

Coram : Hon Ryan, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 16 February 1995

Date of delivery of judgment : 16 February 1995

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

 

1. The appellant was convicted after trial on a charge of criminal intimidation. He now appeals against that conviction.

2. The grounds of appeal are that the magistrate failed to make sufficient findings of fact to entitle him to reach a guilty verdict, or alternatively, that his finding that a threat had been made was contrary to the evidence before the court.

3. The magistrate set out in his Statement of Findings the words said by the victim to have been uttered by the appellant. He rejected the evidence of the appellant and he was satisfied on the evidence that he had before him that a threat had been made with the intent to alarm the victim. On the evidence that he had before him, he was perfectly entitled to come to that view.

4. There is nothing in the grounds of appeal that convinces me that I should in any way interfere with what he has done, and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

(T.J. Ryan)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Arthur for Crown

Mr Sterling Tsu, inst'd by M/s Ricky Li & Co., for Appellant