Tseuk Muk Kwan v. The Queen
|
CACC000760/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 760 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 1st December, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was charged jointly with seven other persons. All were charged with unlawful possession, all with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place and this Appellant with robbery. The unlawful possession charge was amended, and withdrawn as against all the other Accused, before the trial began. No evidence was offered on the possession of an offensive weapon charge and the trial proceeded against this Appellant on the robbery charge and the amended charge of unlawful possession. 2. The evidence was that at about 7:40 in the morning LAU Wei-hung was attacked in the street by two men: he was grabbed by the neck and his property taken, the property consisting of a watch. He was unable to identify his assailants but estimated that they were young men of 21 to 22. Later he was shown a number of watches at a Police Station and identified one of them as being his. The Appellant was arrested at the Tung Tau Resettlement Estate. A police party went to a room in that estate and found in the room, which was six to seven feet in width and eight to nine feet long, eight persons, among whom was the Appellant. He was sitting down and in front of him was a parcel wrapped in newspaper. Inside that newspaper were found some watches, ball-point pens and a finger-ring, these being further wrapped in pink toilet paper. The Appellant was searched and in his rear trouser pocket was found a roll of pink toilet paper. He was cautioned and made a statement which was in these words:
The middle sentence of that statement makes nonsense, but I have been unable to check what the Accused actually said because the original notebook is no longer available and no copy of it is included in the court record. When formally charged with robbery the Appellant said "I understand. I admit" and when charged with unlawful possession he said "I understand. These were mine." I should have said that the eight persons were alleged to be either sitting or squatting in a circle. There was no evidence as to how far from the Appellant the parcel was found but, unless it was some distance away from him, it was not only in front of the Appellant: it was in front of all those who were in the room, and apart from the toilet paper there was nothing to connect the parcel with the Appellant rather than with the other persons in the room until the statements were made. 3. The Appellant denied that he was in possession of the parcel and he denied that he was in possession of the roll of toilet paper. He said that he went to these premises to hire a set of mahjong and that he saw the parcel in a very prominent place when he entered the room. He denied having taken part in the robbery and called his mother to give evidence that he normally started work at 7:30 to 8:00 in the morning and the Court was asked to draw the conclusion that the Appellant could not have been at the place of the robbery. The statements were attacked on the ground of duress. 4. The learned magistrate dismissed the charge of unlawful possession because the property was not found in the street. He was, however, satisfied that the charge of robbery had been proved. As I have already indicated, the charge could barely have been proved without the statements: whether or not the mere possession of the roll of toilet paper would have been sufficient to connect the Appellant with the robbery is open to question. However, the evidence of that possession corroborates the admissions made both to the police constable at the time of arrest and the statements made in answers to the charge. 5. I have considered very carefully whether it is safe to allow the conviction to stand on these confessions but I see no reason to interfere. 6. The appeal is dismissed. 1st December, 1972. Representation: |