Hksar v Fan Kwai Mui Maggie

Court:High Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:HCMA649/2001
Judgment Date:12 Dec 2001
HCMA000649/2001 HKSAR v. FAN KWAI MUI MAGGIE

HCMA000649/2001

HCMA 649/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 649 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM SPCC 1029/2001)

_______________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
FAN KWAI MUI, MAGGIE Appellant

________________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 12 December 2001

Date of Judgment: 12 December 2001

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant appeals against her conviction on one count of Wounding, contrary to s.19 Offences Against the Person Ordinance Cap.212.

2. The wounding allegedly took place in a hotel bar in Tsim Sha Tsui. The victim and a female friend were in the bar and a dispute arose over seating arrangements. At a certain point the Appellant picked up and threw the contents of a glass onto the victim's face, the victim then felt something heavy hit on her forehead. The sound of broken glass was heard at that point. There was a struggle and the victim fell to the floor with the Appellant and a friend of the victim, who tried to separate the Appellant from the victim. The victim felt the little finger of her left hand was slashed. A barman, employed by the hotel, was able to give evidence about what he had been able to see from his bar some 10 feet away.

3. Eventually bystanders took hold of the Appellant and on examination the victim's centre forehead and left little finger were found to be wounded.

4. The Appellant argued in court that the Deputy Magistrate:

(1) wrongly drew adverse inferences from direct evidence and failed to draw those inferences more favourable to the Appellant;

(2) erred in speculating rather than drawing proper inferences from proven circumstances;

(3) failed to properly evaluate and analyse the evidence;

(4) failed to consider whether the Appellant was acting maliciously to inflict bodily harm;

(5) may have been biased against the Appellant because of the behaviour of her police inspector companion and the Appellant in leaving the scene before police arrived;

(6) it was complained that the Magistrate did not give a Turnbull warning; and, cumulatively, it was argued that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

5. Having considered the Deputy Magistrate's Statement of Findings and the material available to me on the file, I am...

To continue reading

Request your trial