HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWOK LEUNG

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

Files (2)

675-EN-1996-01-10

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWOK LEUNG

HTML content

68466-EN-1995-08-08

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWOK LEUNG

HTML content

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.114
(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

and

CHAN KWOK LEUNG

__________________

Coram: Hon. Litton, VP, Mortimer & Ching, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 8 August 1995

Date of Judgment: 8 August 1995

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

 

Ching JA (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted on one charge of stealing a motor vehicle on 31 August 1993 for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 2½ years. He appeals only against the conviction and not against the sentence.

2. The grounds of appeal are that the prosecution produced no material evidence against him, that he had called four alibi witnesses, and that the evidence of the prosecution was manufactured and contrary to the evidence of those alibi witnesses.

3. The judge below correctly directed himself that the onus of proving that the applicant was at the scene of the crime lay upon the prosecution. He found that the relevant witness, PW1, was an unreliable witness so far as times were concerned. However, PW1 gave evidence that he was present with and was an accomplice of the applicant in the commission of the offence. The judge below warned himself of the dangers of relying on the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration and, having done so, nevertheless, accepted his evidence nd rejected that of the alibi witnesses.

4. This was wholly a matter of fact within the province of the trial judge and nothing has been said which would entitle us to interfere. That effectively answers all the complaints in the grounds of appeal, and the application must be dismissed.

 

 

(Henry Litton)
Vice President

(Barry Mortimer)
Justice of Appeal

(Charles Ching)
Justice of Appeal

Mr Wesley Wong, CC for Crown/Respondent

Chan Kwok-leung, applicant in person