IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
Coram: Mayo, Leong and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A.
Date of Hearing: 7 January 1998
Date of Judgment: 7 January 1998
J U D G M E N T
Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. On 29th September 1997, this Applicant was convicted, following a trial before H.H. Judge Sweeney in the District Court, of two chargesof wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212. He was then sentenced to undergo a period of training at a Training Centre. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal againstthis conviction and the sentence that was imposed.
2. The allegation was a most unpleasant one. The Applicant and one other young man were involved in a trivial incident with an off dutypolice officer. This led to the two young men and one other shortly afterwards collecting two large beef knives with which to attackthe off duty policeman. They were aware that the police officer had gone to a pavement café for a meal with other colleagues. TheApplicant and his two acquaintances took a taxi to that location. While the Applicant kept lookout, the other two went to carry outthe attack. Serious injuries were inflicted to the off duty officer and one other person with whom he was having a meal.
3. The Applicant has drafted his own grounds of appeal in which he says that he was merely an onlooker and hurt no one himself. Buttoday in court, he has accepted that he was clearly wrong. He adds, in relation to sentence, that there are family difficulties.
4. The evidence against this Applicant was strong. The learned judge examined it with great care. In particular, the evidence of thetaxi driver showed that the Applicant gave directions as to where he should go just before the attack took place. In addition, theApplicant was identified by the victim as being in the taxi when the attack occurred. The Applicant’s fingerprints were found insidethe taxi. It was an agreed fact that the Applicant had been at the place where the earlier incident was alleged to have occurred.
5. The defence case amounted to an assertion that the Applicant’s presence at the scene of the attack was innocent and accidental. Thejudge found that the Applicant had told what he described as a pack of lies which were carefully designed to get around all the largequestion marks surrounding his activities that night.
6. We can find no reason to interfere with his judgment in this case. There is no merit in the application either as to conviction orsentence.
7. The applications, therefore, are dismissed.
Mr. Y.M. Liu, S.G.C. for D.P.P./Respondent
Applicant in person.