R. v. HUI WAI MAN

HCMA000894/1995

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL No.894 of 1995

___________

 

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	AND
	HUI WAI MAN	Appellant

___________

 

Coram: Hon. Duffy, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 14 November 1995

Date of handing down judgment: 21 November 1995

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This was an appeal against a conviction for handling stolen goods. The goods in question, a Rolex watch, was taken from its owner in the course of a robbery on 9th January 1994. In November 1994, the Rolex Company reported to the police that the appellant had sent the Rolex watch to its Service Centre for servicing in November 1994. The police then arrested the appellant.

2. Under caution the appellant admitted that he had bought the watch in about February 1994 from an unknown female for $3,000. He had believed that the watch was worth around $10,000. Also under caution to the police, he said that he thought that the person who sold him the watch was in need of money to celebrate the New Year.

3. As the learned magistrate directed himself, the question was whether the appellant knew or believed the goods to be stolen, and suspicion that the goods were stolen was not enough. He then came to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution had proved that the appellant knew or believed that the watch had been stolen, from the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the watch as described by the appellant.

4. Mr Hemmings who appeared on the appeal submitted that that could not have been the only reasonable inference to be drawn from these circumstances. The Crown did not seriously contest that submission. I took the view that there could be other reasonable inferences to be drawn from the circumstances, including the one claimed by the appellant in his statement to the police that the lady in question was in need of money for the New Year and thinking him to be a tourist, sold it him in the circumstances as described. I therefore found the conviction to be unsafe and unsatisfactory and I allowed the appeal.

Representation:

Mr W.S. Cheung, DPCC, for Crown

Mr John Hemmings, M/s C.K. Tse & Co., for Appellant