IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2000
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 52/2000)
Coram: Hon Mayo Ag. CJHC in Court
Date of Hearing: 28 December 2000
Date of Judgment: 28 December 2000
J U D G M E N T
Hon Mayo Ag. CJHC (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. This is an application for leave to appeal which is made by D2, D4, D6 and D7 in the trial below in the District Court before JudgeSaunders. All these applicants had been convicted of various offences.
2. These offences arose out of an undercover operation which was undertaken by the police at the Tierra Verde Estate near the TsingYi North Bridge. There had been complaints that tradesmen attempting to undertake decorating work on the Estate had been subjectedto intimidation by a group of racketeers who were monopolising this work at the Estate.
3. On 23 September 1999 a plainclothes police officer went to 6th level of the podium and posed as a contractor soliciting employment.He saw D2, D3, D5 and D7 standing nearby. D3 indicated that he wished to speak to him. He approached the group and D3 made it clearto him by use of threats and foul language that he would not be permitted to work as a contractor on the Estate. D5 threatened tochop him and D2 and D7 made telephone calls on their mobile telephones for back up assistance. During the course of this incidentwords were uttered by some of the men which had a triad connotation.
4. When the situation appeared to be getting out of hand the officer gave a pre-arranged signal and other officers posing as securityguards came to his assistance. It was necessary for the officers to summon further assistance to enable them to arrest all of themen involved.
5. The police officers gave evidence which was accepted by the Judge. Through their counsel defences were run that the whole incidentwas a fabrication. Also cross-examination of the officers attempted to elicit inconsistencies in their evidence.
6. None of the defendants went into the witness box. There was accordingly no evidence to contradict the evidence of the police officers.The Judge was satisfied that all of the offences these defendants had been charged with had been proven at the appropriate level.
7. These defendants have all put forward written grounds of appeal against their convictions. None of the grounds advanced begins todemonstrate any merit whatever. Nothing which has been advanced by any of these defendants would indicate that if leave was to begranted for them to prosecute an appeal that it would have any prospect of success. The applications are accordingly dismissed.
8. I take this opportunity to advise these defendants that if notwithstanding their failure to obtain leave they proceed with theirappeals and they are found to be unmeritorious it is likely that the court will order that some or all of the time they have spentin custody will not count towards the sentences they serve.
Mr Gavin Shiu, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the respondent
Hui Hon-ho, applicant in person (D2)
Hau Kwong-wah, applicant in person (D4)
Chung Tin-shing, applicant in person (D6)
Chan Kam-tong, applicant in person (D7)