HKSAR v. YUEN LIT WO
HTML content
CACC000152/1999
CACC152/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 1999
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 638 and 821 OF 1994 (CONSOLIDATED))
| BETWEEN | ||
| HKSAR | ||
| AND | ||
| YUEN LIT-WO (D5 ) |
-------------------------------
Coram: Hon. Nazareth, V.-P., Stuart-Moore, V.-P. & Mayo, J.A.
Date of Hearing: 9 June 1999
Date of Judgment: 9 June 1999
----------------------
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
Stuart-Moore, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. On 9th March 1999, following a trial before Judge Line in the District Court, this Applicant was convicted of handling stolen goods for which he received a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction on the sole ground that he is unhappy about the judgment because, as he put it in his written grounds, he is innocent. At court today, he has added very little to that, pointing out simply that he has been an honest businessman for many years and believed he was offering assistance to the police in the inquiry which led to this conviction.
2. It is true that when the investigation into this case began, the Applicant was treated as a witness. However, when his statement was being taken it became apparent that he might be concerned in the offence. He was cautioned and admitted:
"I only lent a trailer and a container to Ah Man. I knew he would use them to send stolen cars to the mainland."
3. This admission precisely encapsulates the Applicant's role. The charge alleged that he had dishonestly assisted in the disposal of stolen goods namely, high value motorcars, by or for the benefit of others. The Applicant gave no evidence at his trial so that once the statement was admitted, after a trial of the special issue, the confession went unexplained and uncontradicted. The judge gave full reasons for his decision and there is no justification whatever for us to interfere with this verdict which was properly reached on all the evidence.
4. There is no merit in this application and it is dismissed. As there has not been any substance to it, we shall order that three months of the time the Applicant has spent in custody shall not be reckoned as part of his sentence.
| (G.P. Nazareth) | (M. Stuart-Moore) | (Simon Mayo) |
| Vice-President | Vice-President | Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Mr. P.K. Madigan, S.G.C. for D.P.P./Respondent
Applicant in person.