THE QUEEN v. SHAM KONG LUN

HCMA001142/1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1142 OF 1995

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

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	AND
	SHAM KONG LUN	Appellant

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

Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 8 February 1996

Date of handing down judgment : 15 February 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

1. This was an appeal against conviction for false imprisonment and criminal intimidation. There was no appeal against sentence but it was interesting to note that for offences of this nature, the sentence imposed was a binding over for 12 months. It seemed to me that this may well have reflected the Magistrate's attitude to this case.

2. The victim in the case gave evidence about having been lulled to Shenzhen on a business pretext, asked to play cards and losing at cards to the extent of over $300,000. What followed thereafter was his description of his having been forced to come back to Hong Kong to his office to pay the debt. It was significant that the appellant was not present during the card game, and that when the victim returned to his office, he was allowed to do as he pleased, to make telephone calls as he wished.

3. There was no claim by the victim that he had been defrauded in any way during the card game. The evidence was that the card game was played in the normal way, and while he had been reluctant to play at first, he had joined in in the hope that he could win. His description of how he was taken from the hotel in Shenzhen to the railway station and then to Hong Kong was not entirely accepted by the learned Magistrate. Overall it seemed to me that the account given by the victim was as consistent with the appellant's innocence as it was with his guilt. Mr McNamara, who appeared on the appeal, submitted that it was incumbent upon the Magistrate in a case of this sort to weigh the inherent probabilities of the versions put forward by each witness. I agreed. It seemed to me that the victim's version was as improbable and perhaps more so than that of the appellant in this case. I had a lurking doubt about this case and therefore allowed the appeal.

Representation:

Mr Tam Yiu Ho, S.C.C., for Crown

Mr John McNamara (Ivan Tang & Co.) for Appellant

- 2 -

	(J.M. Duffy)
	Judge of the High Court