Upload
pschil
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
threat to law and order in Hong Kong
Citation preview
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
HCMA 477/2015HCMA 478/2015HCMA 479/2015(Heard together)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THEHONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCEMAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 477 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM KCMP 540/2015)
------------------------
BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
and
CHEUNG KIN CHUNG Appellant
------------------------
And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THEHONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCEMAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 478 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM KCMP 541/2015)
------------------------
BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
- 2 -
and
CHEUNG KIN CHUNG Appellant
------------------------
And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THEHONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCEMAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 479 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM KCMP 553/2015 & 554/2015)
------------------------
BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
and
CHEUNG KIN CHUNG Appellant
------------------------
Before: Hon E Toh J in CourtDate of Hearing: 12 October 2015Date of Judgment: 12 November 2015
-------------------------
J U D G M E N T
-------------------------
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
- 3 -
1. All these three appeals the appellant appealed against the
order of the learned magistrate Dr K M Cheung in refusing the appellant’s
application to issue private summonses in all three cases.
HCMA 477/2015
2. In this case the appellant alleged that Ms Yip who is an
assistant manager of the Housing Department did pervert the course of
public justice by concealing relevant CCTV evidence of an alleged attack
on him on 14 March 2015, the learned magistrate sought further
information in writing from the appellant and the appellant submitted a
written document where the appellant claimed that Mr Wong had hit him
and Ms Yip had refused his request to provide him with the CCTV tape.
I can see from the learned magistrate’s statement of findings that the
appellant had alleged that Ms Yu of Pioneer Management on 24 March
2015 told him that she had seen the relevant CCTV footage but Ms Yip
had refused the request of the appellant to release the CCTV footage to
him. The learned magistrate having considered the submissions of the
appellant and at the end of the day considered that there was no legal duty
on Ms Yip to produce the CCTV tape. Also, relevant is that in the
appellant’s 4-page submission to the learned magistrate, he did not say that
Ms Yu confirmed that the CCTV tape actually showed an attack on the
appellant by the said Mr Wong. The learned magistrate was correct in
saying that there is no positive act on the part of Ms Yip to conceal
evidence as disclosed by the information supplied by the appellant so the
leaned magistrate refused the issuing of the summons.
3. The appellant in court submitted that the Housing Department
had not complied with its performance pledge to ensure residents’ comfort
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
- 4 -
and also he said that when the police came after this alleged assault. They
had not invited him to watch the relevant CCTV tape with them and the
appellant submitted that there was an abuse of his human rights.
4. The appellant alleged that the learned magistrate not only
failed to address his human rights, he also failed to hold the public hearing
which was against his legitimate expectation and no reasons were given by
the learned magistrate’s decision in the covering letter to him although he
admitted he received at the same time the learned magistrate’s statement of
findings.
5. If it is not necessary for the learned magistrate to give a public
hearing if he concluded that he had had already enough information for
him to properly decide the matter and in this case the learned magistrate
did refer to the information from the appellant in the appellant’s
submissions in a 4-page document. I do not see that the human rights of
the appellant were violated in any form and I therefore dismiss the appeal.
HCMA 478/2015
6. In this case the appellant alleged that Ms Chiu, manager of the
Housing Department, had attempted to pervert the cause of public justice
by concealing relevant CCTV evidence of an alleged attack on him by a
male on 14 March 2015. This alleged attack is similar is the attack which
is mentioned in the previous case in HCMA 477/2015. Similarly the
learned magistrate requested for further information from the defendant in
writing and the appellant submitted his written submission and the
information submitted is similar to that in the previous case and the learned
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
- 5 -
magistrate having considered the evidence refused the application of the
appellant for the same reasons.
7. The appellant before me had made the same argument as he
did in HCMA 477/2015 and having considered all the evidence and the
learned magistrate’s statement of findings do not find that the appellant’s
rights were violated nor was the learned magistrate wrong in law. So the
appeal is dismissed.
HCMA 479/2015
8. The appellant alleged that Ms Tsang, a security guard of
Pioneer Management Company Limited, on 15 December 2014 assaulted
him by pushing the kitchen door against him in Room 1208 Mei Tak
House, Mei Tung Estate. In another charge, the appellant in
KCMP 554/2015 alleged that Mr Wong, a security guard of Pioneer
Management Company Limited, on 3 July 2015 did intentionally cause
him to apprehend the application to his body of immediate unlawful force
in the lobby of the ground floor of Mei Tak House, Mei Tung Estate,
Kowloon.
9. The learned magistrate asked the appellant to submit further
information and the appellant submitted a 4-page document and a disc
containing three audio clips. The learned magistrate listened to the three
audio clips and he described them at paragraph 7 of his statement of
findings. The first audio clip recorded a male making a call to complain
which was on 1 July 2015, then on the 3 July 2015 a male alleged a
security officer falling asleep with no greeting to the male. This may have
been the incident which involved Mr Wong against whom the appellant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
- 6 -
had made an allegation of assault and then the final audio clip was on
24 Feb which would be months after the alleged incident with Ms Tsang
where a male voice accused the female security guard of committing an
assault on him. As the learned magistrate very correctly pointed out these
are self-serving clips even though giving the benefit of the doubt to the
appellant, there was no mention whatsoever in the audio clips that
Mr Wong had assaulted the appellant and the allegation made in the audio
clip was two months after the alleged incident involving Ms Tsang, so the
learned magistrate was correct in coming to the conclusion that there is no
evidence nor legal basis for the issuing of a private summons against
Mr Wong or Ms Tsang.
10. One matter I would like to raise is that at paragraph 13, the
learned magistrate also observed that there was no medical report or
evidence from other witness to support the allegation of the applicant. In a
case of common assault it is not necessary for medical reports to be
provided, so the absence of medical reports does not mean that there was
no common assault. However having made that observation, I still
consider that on a careful analysis of what the appellant said that the
alleged assault by Ms Tsang was supposed to have been done by her
pushing a kitchen door and the said kitchen door hit him on his waist and
the alleged assault by Mr Wong on 3 July was that Mr Wong had hit the
desk violently with both hands using foul language. However as I have an
earlier noted the audio clip which was submitted by the appellant to the
learned magistrate merely demonstrated that Mr Wong had failed to greet
him and the male voice on the audio clip had asserted that Ms Tsang had
assaulted him without providing any basis for such assertion.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
- 7 -
11. Therefore on the evidence before me I cannot see that the
learned magistrate had committed any error of law or facts that would
justify my interfering in his decision, so the appeal is dismissed.
(E Toh)Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
Mr Prakash L Daryanani SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent
The appellant appeared in person