R. v. LAI SZE CHEUK

CACC000280/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 280
(Criminal)

___________

 

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	AND
	LAI SZE CHEUK	Applicant

___________

 

Coram: Hon Yang, C.J., Power, V.-P. and Mayo, J.A.

Date of hearing: 11 October 1995

Date of judgment: 11 October 1995

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for handling stolen goods.

2. The police mounted an operation in relation to stolen cars during the night of 3 and 4 February 1994 at Tit Hang Village, Sheung Shui in the New Territories.

3. The surveillance activities involved eight luxury cars which had earlier been stolen. Three men were arrested including the applicant.

4. The applicant's role was according to the police evidence mainly reconnaissance and using his car to escort the cars when they were brought together.

5. The applicant was arrested while the cars were being loaded into stolen containers. He denied involvement and said that he was only acting as a look-out.

6. It was quite clear from the questions and answers which formed part of his cautioned statement made subsequently at the police station that he was well aware of the fact that the cars had been stolen and that action was being taken in respect of the cars.

7. So far as the applicant and the first defendant at the trial below were concerned the main issue before Deputy District Judge Lung was the admissibility of the cautioned statements.

8. Both men made allegations of police brutality. They claimed that the statements had been beaten out of them. Deputy District Judge Lung gave reasons why he rejected these allegations and why he was satisfied that the statements had been made freely and voluntarily.

9. The applicant did not give evidence in the main trial. There can be no doubt that when the contents of the statement is taken in conjunction with the other prosecution evidence there was ample evidence before the judge to enable him to be satisfied at the appropriate level that the applicant was guilty as charged.

10. The applicant's grounds of appeal are framed in general forms and simply contain a statement that the applicant "hadn't done it". Before us he did not add anything of any substance.

11. This application is without merit and is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr D. Saw, SACP & F. Veltro, SC for Crown Prosecutor

LAI Sze-cheuk, Applicant - in person/present