Hksar v Leung Ping Keung

Court:High Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:HCMA659/2008
Judgment Date:09 Oct 2008
HCMA000659/2008 HKSAR v. LEUNG PING KEUNG

HCMA659/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 2210 OF 2008)

---------------------------

BETWEEN

HKSAR Respondent
and
LEUNG PING KEUNG (梁炳強) Appellant

---------------------------

Before : Deputy High Court Judge Longley in Court

Date of Hearing : 9 October 2008

Date of Judgment : 9 October 2008

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

1. This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction by Mr Smout at Tsuen Wan Magistrates’ Court on 27 June this year of one charge of indecency in public, contrary to section 148(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

2. The charge alleged that the appellant indecently exposed his penis outside Bicycle Lane at the Riverside of Tin Shui Estate, Tin Shui Wai, being a public place, without lawful authority or excuse.

3. The prosecution case was dependent on the evidence of the alleged victim, Madam Wong Ho Shan (“PW1”) who was jogging outside Bicycle Lane at about 9 p.m. on the day in question. She said that the appellant was jogging behind her at a similar pace and that he was holding a red light which had at one point shone on the ground in front of her. She looked at him and saw that he was looking at her. Despite the time at night, he was wearing sunglasses which he proceeded to take off and nodded at her making a sound like “Zip-Zip”. She was a bit frightened so she ran faster. He ran faster as well. The appellant took a staircase leading to a pavement on her right hand side but was still following her. She looked around and saw that he had pulled down his trousers to his thighs and was masturbating about 4 to 5 metres from her while looking at her. She said that she saw him masturbating for 8 to 10 seconds. She ran up to two men in front of her, who happened to be plain-clothed police officers to stop the appellant.

4. The appellant’s evidence was that he was not following PW1. He had passed Bicycle Lane where he had drunk two cans of beer. He was shining a torch in order to find the coins that he had dropped. Suddenly he had the urge to urinate, so he had gone to a place which was dark. He explained that he was not wearing underwear and was wearing his girlfriend’s jeans as he has wet his own jeans and...

To continue reading

Request your trial