Hksar v Lam Sai Cheung

Cited as:[1998] 2 HKLRD 499
Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMC3/1998
Judgment Date:29 Jul 1998
FAMC000003/1998 HKSAR v. LAM SAI CHEUNG

FAMC000003/1998

FAMC No. 3 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. FAMC No. 3 OF 1998 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM HCMA No. 1141 OF 1997)

_____________________

Between:
LAM SAI CHEUNG Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ in Court

Date of Hearing: 29 July 1998

Date of Determination: 29 July 1998

______________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________________

Mr Justice Ching, PJ :

1. This is the determination of the Appeals Committee.

2. The applicant was convicted of one count of theft in the Magistrates' Court. His appeal to a Judge of the Court of First Instance was dismissed and he now applies to us for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that a grave and substantial injustice has been done to him and that the appeal would involve a point of law of great and general importance. That point is said to be

'whether an uncautioned note, obtained by his employers pursuant to company policy for the purpose of summarily dismissing him, is admissible as a voluntary confession in criminal proceedings.'

He asks us to certify that point of law in accordance with section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484.

3. The charge upon which he was convicted was that on 26th June, 1997, he stole a baby-changing table from his employer, IKEA, at its Tsuen Wan branch. He was a customer services supervisor employed at that branch at the time. The table was not an item of furniture sold at the branch but had been sent to it from another branch. The applicant admitted that he had signed for its receipt and that he had put it in his office but denied taking it away. He admitted having left the branch with a parcel on the day in question but claimed that it consisted of diapers which he had bought in a supermarket.

4. More importantly, there was evidence that when suspicion fell on the applicant he was interviewed by four of his superiors. One of them, whose evidence was expressly accepted by the Magistrate, said that although denying the allegation at first the applicant eventually made...

To continue reading

Request your trial