HCMA000843/2000
HCMA 843/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2000
(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 460/2000)
_______________
| BETWEEN | | |
| HKSAR | Respondent |
| | |
| AND | |
| | |
| HUNG WAI NGAI | Appellant |
________________
Coram: Hon V. Bokhary J in Court
Date of Hearing: 14 November 2000
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2000
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
1. This appellant is a man in his 70's of previous good character. On 3 July 2000, he was convicted by Colin Mackintosh Esquire in the Magistrate's Court sitting at Eastern on a single charge of conspiracy to defraud. He now appeals against conviction.
2. The charge is particularized as follows:
"Hung Wai-ngai, you are charged that between September, 1998 and the 5th day of July, 1999 in Hong Kong, you conspired together with two persons unknown to defraud Ling Yau Yuk Fong to invest a sum of $300,000.00 - Hong Kong currency in a joint venture to print banknotes of the United States of America in Thailand, by dishonestly and falsely representing to the said Ling Yau Yuk Fong that you were businessmen who intended to invest in Hong Kong; you owned a plant and machinery in Thailand to print banknotes of the United States of America; and you could make a duplicate of a Hong Kong one hundred dollars note with four bottles of chemicals."
3. At the trial, the main prosecution witness was the proposed victim named in the charge, Madam Ling Yau Yuk Fong, a housewife in her 60's. Madam Yau gave an account of encounters which she had with the appellant and two other men. If her account of those encounters is true it would be proper to draw as the only reasonable inference therefrom that the appellant had indeed conspired as charged.
4. The Magistrate after evaluating all the evidence felt sure that her account was true and that the appellant's evidence denying her account was false.
5. The Magistrate drew the inference as the only reasonable one to draw on Madam Yau's account that the appellant had indeed conspired as charged.
6. I have considered everything urged by the appellant. I am satisfied that the Magistrate was entitled to convict and that his decision to convict was arrived at properly.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
| (V. Bokhary) |
| Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Representation:
Mr Andrew Bruce, SC, SADPP leading Ms Vinci Lam, GC, of the
Department of Justice, for the Respondent
Appellant in person