Hksar v Lee Ka Ying

Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMC28/1998
Judgment Date:20 Jan 1999
FAMC000028/1998 HKSAR v. LEE KA YING

FAMC000028/1998

FAMC No. 28 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 28 OF 1998 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM HCMA No. 900 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between:
LEE KA YING Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

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

Date of Hearing: 20 January 1999

Date of Determination: 20 January 1999

__________________________

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

__________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1. This applicant was convicted on three charges in the Magistrate's Court. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2. His convictions were on two charges of criminal damage and one of making off without payment; and his total punishment came to a fine of $6,000.

3. The case alleged against him was as follows. He parked a car in a car park, leaving it in a loading and unloading area where vehicles were not supposed to be left. The car park staff impounded the car by chaining it. He cut the chain. That was one act of criminal damage. They chained the car again. He cut the second chain too. That was the second act of criminal damage. And then he drove the car away without paying the parking fee. That was the act of making off without payment.

4. At the trial, the prosecution led direct evidence that the acts of parking in a loading and unloading area, cutting chains twice and driving off without paying the parking fee all took place.

5. The prosecution led direct and identification evidence that the applicant had threatened to cut the chain before the first act of chain-cutting took place.

6. That the applicant did all the acts alleged against him was presented by the prosecution to the Magistrate as a matter of irresistible inference.

7. As was his right, the applicant chose not to give or call evidence at his trial.

8. Accepting the prosecution's direct and identification evidence, and considering the inferences urged by the prosecution to be irresistible, the Magistrate convicted.

9. The High Court carefully examined the convictions and upheld them.

10. We have considered the applicant's argument to...

To continue reading

Request your trial