Read the full judgment text of CACC 000402/1995 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 December 1995 before Yang, C.J., Ching, J.A. and Leong, J..
Criminal law – robbery – possession of imitation firearm – appeal against conviction – voluntariness of statements – fingerprint evidence – destruction of original exhibit – jury direction – evidence – procedure – The Applicant was convicted of robbery and possession of an imitation firearm during robbery, sentenced to 7 years and 3 years concurrent. On appeal, he argued: (1) the trial judge wrongly admitted his statements as voluntary despite alleged police inconsistencies; (2) fingerprint evidence was unreliable because the original paper was destroyed; (3) the judge failed to direct the jury that the robber wore gloves. Held: (1) The judge's finding on voluntariness was a question of fact based on credibility, and was correct. (2) The fingerprint was adequately preserved through photographs; destruction did not prejudice the Applicant. (3) The judge was not required to give a special direction on gloves as the fingerprint was on the paper, not at the scene. Application dismissed.
Legal issues: Voluntariness of statements · Admissibility of fingerprint evidence after destruction of original · Jury direction on gloves
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal against sentence abandoned.