Hksar v Chan Yiu Ming

Court:High Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:HCMA603/1999
Judgment Date:23 Nov 1999
HCMA000603/1999 HKSAR v. CHAN YIU MING

HCMA000603/1999

HCMA 603/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA 603 OF 1999

(On Appeal from NKCC 913/99)

____________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
CHAN YIU MING Appellant

____________

Coram: The Hon. Madam Justice Beeson in Court

Date of Hearing: 23 November 1999

Date of Judgment: 23 November 1999

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. This Appellant was found guilty after trial of one count of Attempting Theft, which was a pickpocketing, and one count of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. Originally the Magistrate sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment in total in respect of those counts, but on review that was reduced to 6 months' imprisonment for the Attempted Theft and 1 month imprisonment for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. The sentences were to be concurrent, making a total of 6 months' imprisonment.

2. The Appellant originally appealed against conviction and sentence in respect of both counts. Today he advised the court he did not wish to appeal against conviction in respect of the Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, but wished to proceed with his appeal in respect of the conviction for Attempted Theft.

3. I took it, although Appellant did not expressly say so, that he was not withdrawing the appeal against the sentence in respect of the assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I was sure the Appellant wished to appeal the conviction and sentence in respect of the Attempted Theft. There were no grounds of appeal put before me apart from general references to evidence that had already been canvassed at some length before the Magistrate. The Appellant, who represented himself on the appeal, had been represented at trial.

4. The Appellant complained that the Magistrate failed to consider that the train compartment at the time of the alleged offence was particularly crowded and had not taken into account the fact that Appellant had no intent to steal, or that he had a permanent job which would make it unlikely that he would become involved in a theft on the train. The Appellant said that it was not fair that the Magistrate had accepted the evidence of the victim and as there was no independent evidence he should not have been convicted at...

To continue reading

Request your trial