Chan Kwok Yee v. The Queen
|
CACC000599/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599 OF 1971. -----------------
----------------- Coram: Pickering, J. Date of Judgment: 29th September, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of burglary and two of theft. In chronological order, these offences were committed on the 3rd, 8th, 11th and 14th of June of this year. 2. On the 14th June, the appellant was ambushed by police officers as the result of information received from an informer. The appellant thereupon confessed that a fountain pen found upon him, together with a camera, had been stolen by him that afternoon. These two items formed the subject matter of the "B" charge. Whilst in custody the appellant confessed to the offences committed on the 3rd, 8th and 11th of June respectively. 3. The appeal is against sentence only; the four sentences imposed by the learned magistrate total 16 months imprisonment. In his "Application for Extension of Time for Giving Notice of Appeal against Sentence", the appellant stated that upon the dates of the three offences first committed, he was actually in prison, having been released only on the 12th of June. Upon the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Soh, for the Crown, confirmed that this was the case and stated that he did not seek to uphold even the convictions upon these three charges. 4. It follows that I must treat this appeal as an appeal against conviction and the appeal succeeds in respect of the three offences allegedly committed by the appellant on the 3rd, 8th and 11th of June, the convictions and sentences thereon being set aside. 5. In his "Application for Extension of Time for Giving Notice of Appeal against Sentence", dated 6th August, the appellant said that he had been suffering from a continuous headache from the time of his arrest on the 14th of June, until the 3rd of August, and that it was only upon the 3rd of August that he fully realised that he had been wrongly convicted. When I asked the appellant why he had confessed to crimes which he could not have committed, he told me that his brain was defective, a statement which did not appear to be borne out by his attitude and clarity in the dock, and the true explanation of his readiness to confess to crimes which he could not have committed, remains obscure. 6. The appellant informed me that his plea of guilty on the "B" charge was a correct plea, and the net result is that the convictions and sentences in respect of the "A", "C" and "D" charges are set aside, whilst the appeal in respect of three months imprisonment imposed upon the "B" charge is dismissed. 7. The apparent readiness of the appellant to confess, and subsequently plead guilty, to crimes perpetrated whilst he was in prison, must necessarily give rise to disquiet. The suspicion, possibly quite unfounded, that some pressure was brought to bear upon the appellant by the police, whilst he was in their custody, to confess to three crimes outstanding on the police books, will not simply dissipate; the more so, since in the Statement of Facts presented to the Learned Magistrate, the appellant is said to have taken the police officers who arrested him to the scene of these offences, committed whilst he was actually in prison. The question inevitably arises, did he take them or did they take him? Before me, the appellant denied any such visits though he had agreed with the Statement of Facts in the Court below. Accordingly I direct that the papers in this case be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police for the purpose of enquiry into the circumstances, surrounding the confession of the appellant to the crimes committed on the 3rd, 8th and 11th June of this year; and I further direct that the results of that enquiry be made known to the Court. Representation: Appellant in person Soh, C.C. for Crown. |