Yeung Po Ping v. The Queen

CACC000659/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 659 OF 1972

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 31st October, 1972.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This Appellant was originally charged along with another youth, both being charged with robbery and each with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. The learned magistrate convicted on the charge of robbery only and it is against that conviction that this Appellant appeals.

2. The alleged victim of the robbery was not called, but his absence was explained: he has apparently left this jurisdiction and gone to Macau. He went before he could be served with a summons. There was no other eye-witness of this incident who could be called by the Prosecution. The evidence was substantially that of two statements made by the Accused. The first was a statement alleged to have been made to a constable and recorded in his notebook. The second was a formal answer to a charge. The statements were objected to on the ground that they were not voluntary and the learned magistrate held a trial within a trial. The learned magistrate decided to admit the statements. There is one passage in his decision on that which has caused me a little anxiety but looking at the decision as a whole I think it cannot be objected to.

In his finding he said:

"          I ruled that the statements of D1 were admissible as I did not accept this story of being beaten."

Standing alone that, of course, would (or might) suggest that he had merely weighed the evidence on a balance of probabilities but, as I say, looking at the judgment as a whole I think it is clear that the learned magistrate did not apply the wrong test. These statements were clear confessions and by themselves were sufficient evidence upon which to convict.

3. The learned magistrate said that there was some corroboration in that the police found a knife on the Appellant and a watch on his companion. Again I have some doubts whether that really is corroboration since the articles were never identified by the victim. However, it is quite clear that the magistrate believed that the statements were true and that was sufficient.

4. The appeal must be dismissed.

31st October, 1972.

Representation: