HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1995

THE QUEEN v. CHUI KA-FAI

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
5859-EN-1996-01-19

THE QUEEN v. CHUI KA-FAI

HTML content

CACC000598/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 598
(Criminal)

THE QUEEN
AND
CHUI KA-FAI

-------------------------------------

Coram: Power, V.-P., Mortimer and Mayo, JJ.A.

Date: 19 January 1996

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

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

1. This applicant was convicted by Deputy Judge Duggan in the Wanchai District Court on 17 August 1995 of two burglaries in domestic premises committed jointly with another person. He was sentenced to a period of training in a training centre. Now he applies for leave to appeal against his convictions.

The facts

2. On 17 July this applicant and two others went to Room 1442 in Lok Wah House. Using a crowbar they forced their way into the room which was unoccupied. The two others went in and stole the property in the count and the applicant kept the lookout. Out of that offence, the applicant himself got a video recorder. He sold it for $500 in order to pay his heroin addiction.

3. When he was arrested, other property was found at his home. He was asked about it. He admitted that he had taken part of that property by burgling a flat on a floor between the 8th and 12th floors of the same building. That was in another statement which he gave to the police.

Conclusion

4. At his trial, the admission of those statements was challenged, saying - as he says before us - that he had been assaulted and made to admit the offences.

5. Those matters concerning admissibility were considered by the judge. Having considered them, he rejected the applicant's account and admitted the statements. There is no basis for this Court to say that it is arguable, that the judge was wrong to admit those statements in evidence. Once the statements were admitted the evidence on both these counts was overwhelming. There is no merit in this application and it is refused.

(N.P. Power)(Barry Mortimer)(Simon Mayo)
Vice PresidentJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr Jackson Poon (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent