HKSAR v. YANG KANG QI

HCMA000669/2002

HCMA 669/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 669 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 2942 OF 2001)

_______________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
	AND
	YANG KANG QI	Appellant

_______________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court

Date of Hearing: 16 January 2003

Date of Judgment: 16 January 2003

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

1. This is an appeal against conviction, the appellant having been convicted of two offences, the first one of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and, secondly, resisting another police officer in the execution of his duty.

2. The convictions arose because the police had received information which suggested that the appellant was carrying some drugs. Two police constables approached him. They declared their identity, making the appellant aware that they were police officers, albeit they were in plainclothes. The officers both said they produced their warrant cards. The appellant was carrying a package. The officers said he then immediately threw it away. The police officers approached him, laid hands on him, telling him not to move and declared arrest for the possession of dangerous drugs. The appellant struggled; they fell to the ground. He was handcuffed and even then there was still struggling. Those are the very simple facts. They were spoken to under oath by the two police officers.

3. It was suggested to them that, in effect, they had just launched an attack on the appellant and he did no more than defend himself.

4. The appellant did not give evidence. Accordingly, before the Magistrate, the evidence was all one way. It was not, in itself, inherently unbelievable and the cross-examination of the officers did not begin to do sufficient damage to render it incredible. In those circumstances, it was inevitable, it seems to me, that the evidence would have demonstrated the commission of the two offences by the appellant.

5. I have pointed out to him today the difficulty he faces because there was no evidence from his side. He tells me he took legal advice and that he was represented at the time. Today he repeats, in effect, the arguments that were made below, and he tells me that he did not realise that the men who set upon him were police officers.

6. I regret to say, in those circumstances, that nothing in the material before me begins to persuade me that it would be just to reverse the convictions entered by the Magistrate.

	(Peter Line)
	Deputy High Court Judge

Representation:

Appellant, in person

Mr Cheung Wai-sun, DPGC of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR