IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SHEERAZI MUSTARSHID MOHAMMAD JAHANGIR 2nd Applicant 3rd Applicant
Coram: Hon Power V.-P., Mortimer, V.-P. and Sears, J.
Date of hearing: 6 August 1997
Date of judgment: 6 August 1997
J U D G M E N T
Sears, J. (delivering the judgment of the Court)
1. The 1st and 3rd applicants, Ghulam Ali and Mohammad Jahangir, together with a third person, were convicted before H.H. Judge Surman on 27 January1997; Ghulam Ali of two offences : assault occasioning actual bodily harm and robbery and Mohammad Jahangir of assault occasioningactual bodily harm. For the assault, the sentence was eight months for each applicant and for the robbery offence, Ghulam Ali received12 months concurrent. They are currently serving sentences of imprisonment and we are told applications to appeal have been lodgedin respect of those matters.
2. The brief facts of this particular case are that in November 1995, a number of Pakistani and Chinese people boarded a lighter inTseung Kwan O and asked a Mr Irfan Hussain if they could store certain goods on board. When he refused, a dispute broke out and hewas attacked by the five Pakistanis who hit him, he alleged, with pipes. He suffered bruises on his face and minor cut on his hands,chest and thighs. Ghulam Ali, who was the 1st defendant denied taking part in that assault, the 3rd defendant gave no evidence. Both of these applicants were picked out on identification parades in 1996.
3. As far as the robbery was concerned in November 1995 when Mr Irfan Hussain was on his way to the police to help with their enquiries,Ghulam Ali together with the 2nd defendant intercepted him and threatened him. He snatched the pager and they both ran away. He was subsequently arrested at Kai TakAirport.
4. The judge in his Reasons for Verdict dealt with all the relevant matters, analysed the evidence that was given and came to the conclusionso that he was sure that both of these applicants had committed the offences with which they were charged. We can find nothing whichsuggests that the Reasons for Verdict are in any way flawed. Both applications for leave to appeal against conviction are refused.
5. The sentences, as I have said were eight months for the assault and for Ghulam Ali, 12 months for the robbery concurrent. The sentenceof eight months was, if anything, somewhat on the low side. We cannot see any reason to disturb that. As far as the robbery sentencewas concerned, again, in our judgment, there is no way in which we can interfere with that sentence. The sentences were ordered torun consecutively with the current prison sentences. The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are also dismissed.
Mr Y.M. Liu, S.G.C., for Secretary for Justice/Respondent
1st and 3rd Applicants in person