HKSAR v. Dar Asim Tahir and Another

DCCC 1196/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1196 OF 2012

____________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

1.The defendants plead not guilty to one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

Application for an adjournment

2.Shortly before trial both the defendants wrote to the court asking for an adjournment so that Mrs Panesar could represent them at trial.   Mrs Panesar, who was the counsel originally assigned by Legal Aid to represent the defendants, informed the defendants she was very busy and unable to represent them at trial.  Legal Aid therefore appointed Mr Hotten in lieu of Mrs Panesar to represent the defendants.  On the first day of trial Mr Hotten informed the court the defendants were no longer applying for an adjournment and wished to proceed.  The defendants confirming in court they withdrew their application for an adjournment I proceeded with the trial.

Introduction

3.Mr Ho Fok Meng (PW1) operated a stall selling pork in the Tai Yuen Estate Market in Tai Po.  After work Mr Ho would secure the day’s takings in his money bag and then ride his bicycle home.

4.In summary the prosecution case is that in the evenings of the 22 or 23 and the 26 October 2012 Mr Ho saw three South Asian males paying attention to him as he was leaving on his bicycle to go home.  On the 27 October as Mr Ho was about to leave on his bicycle he was robbed by three South Asian males.  One of the robbers took away his money bag and fled in one direction whilst the other two robbers fled in a different direction.  Mr Ho chased after the one who snatched the money bag but was unable to catch him and therefore reported the matter to the police by dialling 999. 

5.Mr Ho then returned to collect his bicycle and went in search of the other two robbers. In the meantime the defendants were seen by police officers running away from near the scene of the robbery.  After a chase the police intercepted the defendants and took them on board a police van. 

6.Whilst riding his bicycle Mr Ho noticed the police van and approached to tell them about the robbery.  Mr Ho saw two of the robbers sitting inside the police van and immediately told the police officer guarding the police van that they had robbed him.  Mr Ho recognised the two defendants as part of the group of three South Asian males who had the day before and earlier in the week been watching him when he was leaving on his bicycle to go home after work.

7.The defence case in summary is that Mr Ho is mistaken that the defendants were two of the three robbers. 

Evidence

8.The prosecution called four witnesses, Mr Ho (PW1); and three police officers SPC 54486 (PW2), PC 4423 (PW3) and PC 5464 (PW4).  Photographs (exhibit P1) and a street map (exhibit P2) have been admitted into evidence pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221 (exhibit P3).

9.The prosecution case depending on the correctness of the identification of the defendants by Mr Ho, which identifications the defence allege to be mistaken, I direct myself in accordance with the principles established in the case of R v Turnbull [1976] 3 WLR 445.  I warn myself of the special need for caution before convicting the defendants in reliance on the evidence of identification.  I remind myself to look at the quality of the identification and all the circumstances in which the identification was made and in so doing look for any specific weaknesses, which have appeared in the identification evidence.  I remind myself of the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing witness.

10.The defendants elected to remain silent.  No witnesses were called on their behalf.  No adverse inference is drawn against the defendants for remaining silent.  That is their right.  This proves nothing one way or the other.  This does not establish their guilt.  On the other hand this means there is no evidence from the defence to undermine, contradict or explain the evidence led by the prosecution.  As was said in Turnbull a judge is entitled to tell the jury that when assessing the quality of the identification evidence they can take into consideration the fact that it is uncontradicted by any evidence coming from the accused himself.

11.Admitted in evidence is that D1 is a person of clear record.  I direct myself in accordance with the decision in HKSAR v Tang Siu Man[1997-98] 1 HKCFAR 107.

12.In reaching my verdict I remind myself of the burden and standard of proof and that the burden is on the prosecution throughout.  The defendants have to prove nothing.  I direct myself that I must be sure of the guilt of each defendant before I can convict, the case of each defendant to be considered separately.

13.I remind myself that when drawing inferences from the evidence the inference must be a compelling one and the only one that no reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved.

14.I have carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions of Miss Ma and Mr Hotten.  Unless otherwise stated I accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

Robbery

15.I will first briefly summarise the circumstances of the robbery, there being no issue that Mr Ho was robbed.  The robbery took place on the 27 October last year.  Earlier in the week in the evening of either the 22 or 23 October Mr Ho saw three South Asian males watching him as he was leaving to go home on his bicycle.  Mr Ho saw the same three South Asian males again when leaving work on the evening of the 26 October.

16.The next day Mr Ho finished work around 7.45 p.m.  As usual Mr Ho placed the day’s takings (including $70,000 cash) in his money bag and went to collect his bicycle to ride home.  After securing his money bag Mr Ho got on his bicycle to leave. 

17.At this moment Mr Ho saw three South Asian males heading towards him from the opposite side of On Cheung Road.  They started to shower Mr Ho with punches to the face, which Mr Ho tried to ward off.  Mr Ho fell off his bicycle at which point two of the males then kicked Mr Ho whilst the third male took away his money bag.  Mr Ho saw the robber who snatched the money bag flee towards Tai Yuen Street on the right whilst the other two ran towards On Cheung Road on the left.

18.Mr Ho paid no further attention to the other two and concentrated on the robber who snatched the money bag.  Mr Ho got up and chased after him but was unable to catch him. Mr Ho then rang 999 saying he had been robbed by three South Asian males. 

19.Mr Ho marked on a copy of the street map (exhibit P2A) the location of the robbery with a red O and thedirections the robbers fled by two arrows, red for the robber who snatched the money bag and blue for the two who ran to the left.  With reference to photographs 3-5, exhibit P1 Mr Ho said the two ran in the direction of the blue car shown in the photographs. 

20.Mr Ho recognised the three South Asian males who robbed him were the same three South Asian males who had been watching him as he was leaving to go home on his bicycle the night before and earlier in the week.

Identification

21.After calling 999 Mr Ho returned to pick up his bicycle and rode around to see if he could find the other two robbers.  After about three minutes Mr Ho reached Kau Hui Chik Street where he saw a police van.  Mr Ho marked this route also on the same copy of the street map (exhibit P2A).  The route appearing to be different to the direction Mr Ho had marked the two robbers as leaving I sought clarification whether Mr Ho went in the same direction the two robbers had run. Mr Ho explained that he went in the same direction as the two robbers but he did not see them cross On Cheung Road.  No doubt this was because, as noted a moment ago, Mr Ho was concentrating on where the robber who snatched the money bag went and paid no further attention to the other two. 

22.According to SPC 54486 (PW2) the police van arrived at Kau Hui Chik Street around 19:53 and the defendants taken onboard at around 19:55.  PC 4423 (PW3) could not recall the exact times which he puts at about 19:55 and 20:00.  The defendants were seated in the back row of the van on the two middle seats, D1 to the right and D2 to the left.  SPC 54486 was to the side of D1 and PC 4423 to the side of D2.  SPC 54486 said PC 4423 and he were standing whereas PC 4423 said they were sitting next to the defendants.  PC 5464 (PW4), who was standing on guard outside the police van, also said SPC 54486 and PC 4423 were seated.

23.Mr Ho approached the van to inform the police about the robbery.  On reaching the police van and whilst standing on the pavement Mr Ho said that naturally he took a look inside the police van.  Mr Ho saw two of the South Asian males who had robbed him.  In answer to the court Mr Ho said this was roughly a bit more than 10 minutes from the time he first saw the robbers.

24.Mr Ho immediately told PC 5464 that the two defendants had robbed him.  When asked how long he had observed the defendants in the police van before he told PC 5464 Mr Ho replied that once he looked inside he recognised them.  PC 5464 immediately took Mr Ho about 5 meters away from the police van and asked what happened.  In cross-examination PC 5464 agreed he described in his witness statement as taking Mr Ho away instantly and explained this was because where they were was very noisy.  At about 20:08 PC 5464 opened the door of the police van and told his colleagues he had located the victim of the robbery as a result of which D1 and D2 were arrested.   

25.This is a convenient time to deal with Mr Hotten’s submission there is a material difference in the evidence of Mr Ho and PC 5464 as to where Mr Ho was standing when he pointed out the defendants to PC 5464.  In cross-examination Mr Ho agreed he spoke to PC 5464 whilst standing at the side of the police van whereas PC 5464 said he was standing on the pavement about one foot in front of the police van when Mr Ho approached and pointed out that the two defendants had robbed him earlier on.

26.Mr Hotten submits this is important because the position where Mr Ho was standing would affect how clear a view of the defendants he actually had, in particular when considering that only after some hesitation was PC 5464 able to say he could see the faces of the defendants from where he was standing. 

27.With respect this submission is based on a misunderstanding of the evidence of Mr Ho.  Mr Ho’s evidence was that he approached the police van from the rear and as he passed the van he looked inside and recognised the defendants were two of the robbers.  Mr Ho then pointed out the defendants to PC 5464 saying they had robbed him earlier on.  Accepting there is a discrepancy in the evidence as to where PC 5464 was when Mr Ho pointed out the defendants I am satisfied that Mr Ho having already recognised the defendants as two of the robbers before pointing them out to PC 5464 that this is not a material discrepancy.  

Dock identification

28.Mr Hotten relying on the decision inHKSAR v TsangChun YuHCMA 761/2005 objected to dock identification of the defendants on the basis there had been no identification parade or confrontation.  This was not a first time identification in court.  Nor was this a case where the police took Mr Ho to see if he could identify suspects.  Mr Ho’s identification as he was passing the police van was spontaneous without any direction or influence of the police officers.  Only after recognising the robbers did Mr Ho tell the police. 

29.I therefore overruled the objection and permitted court identification.  Mr Ho said that at the time of the incident he recognised the robbers very clearly but now 4 months later (actually nearly 5 months) he worried it may become a bit vague but he would try his best to identify them.  Mr Ho was only able to identify D2 saying the other one was a bit vague.

30.The circumstances in which Mr Ho came to identify the defendants in the police van are to be examined in determining whether one can safely rely on that identification.  In my view the fact Mr Ho could identify D2 in court almost 5 months later did not add to the reliability of the earlier identification.  The failure to identify D1 on the other hand is a factor to take into account in assessing the reliability of the earlier identification.  Appearances can however change as Mr Hotten drew to the court’s attention (when submitting on the length of hair) that in court D1 had longer hair than D2 compared to the day of arrest when D1 had shorter hair than D2.  I now turn to examine the circumstances in which Mr Ho came to identify the defendants in the police van.

Description

31.Mr Ho described in court the three South Asian males he saw on the 22 or 23 October; the 26 October and the day of the robbery, the 27 October.  This was in respect of each incident a general description as to age, build, height, hair and in respect of the robbery the clothing worn by the robbers. 

32.Mr Hotten accepting that the description given of the three South Asian males for each of the three incidents is more or less consistent submits there are weaknesses in the description with regards to the upper clothing worn by D1 and the length of D2’s hair.   

Clothing

33.Mr Ho described the upper clothing of one of the two robbers who ran to the left as a red top with short sleevesand buttons; and the other one with a short sleeve checked top.  The robber who took his money bag was wearing a light coloured short sleeve shirt.  When asked what clothing were the defendants wearing when he saw them inside the police van Mr Ho replied they were wearing the same clothing when they robbed him, one in red and the other in a lighter coloured checked top. 

34.In cross-examination Mr Ho said he did not pay attention to what they were wearing in the police van and that he only recognised their faces.  Later when put by Mr Hotten he could not see their clothing Mr Ho replied that as they were sitting he could not see their clothing clearly. 

35.When shown a red T-shirt (exhibit P4) which was worn by D1 Mr Ho said he could not recognise the T-shirt and said that it seemed it was not this one.  I note also the T-shirt has no buttons.  Mr Ho was able to recognise the clothing worn by D2 (exhibit P5).  

36.SPC 54486 identified the red T-shirt worn by D1 and said the thing he remembered the most was the cartoon character on the front of the T-shirt.  Mr Hotten submits that it is significant that Mr Ho did not notice the cartoon character. Mr Ho however was not the only one who did not notice the cartoon character.  In cross-examination Mr Hotten asked PC 5464 to take the T-shirt out of the exhibit bag and specifically look at the cartoon character.  PC 5464 agreeing the design was very noticeable said he could only recognise one of the defendants wore a red top but had no impression of exhibit P4.  PC 4423 was not asked any questions about the clothing worn by D1.

37.What is clear from Mr Ho’s evidence is that he identified the defendants by their faces, which he could see clearly, and not by their clothing.  The fact Mr Ho only described a red top and was unable to recognise the red T-shirt (exhibit P4) worn by D1 does not cause me to doubt his identification of D1. 

Hair

38.Mr Ho described the robbers as having short hair.  Specifically with regards to the 22 or 23 October when asked whether they all had short hair Mr Ho repliedapproximately and explained that as he had seen them for several seconds he was not able to see so many things.  In respect of the 26 October Mr Ho said that he felt they had short hair but did not notice their hair style.  Mr Ho said all three robbers had short hair.

39.In cross-examination in respect of the 26 October Mr Ho confirmed all three had short hair.  When asked again at the end of cross-examination to agree that he described the three robbers as having short hair Mr Ho replied short and went on to explain short hair but with different lengths.  Mr Ho regarded hair below the ears as short and shoulder length hair as not short.

40.The description of the length of D2’s hair is different to that of two of the police officers who described D2 as having long hair.  In cross-examination SPC 54486 agreed that in his witness statement he described D2 as having long hair.  When asked by Mr Hotten to describe D2’s hair SPC 54486 replied a bit longer than D1.  Asked for more detail SPC 54486 said D2’s hair was longer than his therefore he described D2 as having long hair and that he wrote down short hair for D1 because D1’s hair was shorter than his.  SPC 54486’s hair was best described as “short back and sides”. 

41.In cross-examination PC 5464 also agreed in his witness statement he described D2 as having long hair.  PC 5464 demonstrated by this he meant to the bottom of the collar.  PC 4423 was not asked any questions about the length of D2’s hair.

42.Mr Hotten submits the description by the police of D2 having long hair is significant and raises a question mark over the identification of D2 by Mr Ho. Length of hair is relative and on the descriptions given by the two police officers of what they meant by long hair this would not in my view have been obviously noticeable in what was a fast moving incident.  Clearly Mr Ho had limited time to observe the hair and from his description of the robbery he was viewing the robbers for most of the time from the front and when they ran away concentrated on the one who snatched the money bag.  The fact two police officers described D2 as having long hair does not cause me to doubt Mr Ho’s identification of D2. 

Observation and lighting

43.Mr Ho described the robbery as happening very quick, around 20-30 seconds.  When asked to describe the clothing of the robbers Mr Ho said that in respect of one of the robbers from his glance he saw the colour was a lighter red.  On the previous nights he saw them face to face from a distance of about 15 feet for 2-3 seconds on each occasion.  On the night before Mr Ho also describes first passing them on the staircase when he took a glance at them.  In cross-examination Mr Ho said on the night before the robbery he recognised they were the same three males he had seen earlier in the week and therefore paid particular attention to them. 

44.The lighting was described as bright on the first occasion as it was still daylight.  Mr Hotten submits Mr Ho is mistaken in this regard as the time he gave as leaving was 7.45 p.m. when it would be dark.  I accept Mr Ho’s evidence that he made a mistake as to the time and that when he left on this occasion it was still daylight.  The night before and the night of the robbery were described as getting dark.  The photographs show limited lighting in the area both in the pathway where Mr Ho kept his bicycle and in the vicinity of On Cheung Road. 

45.The identification at the police van was also a matter of seconds.  As noted earlier Mr Ho said that once he looked inside the police van he recognised the defendants as two of the robbers and immediately told PC 5464 that the two defendants had robbed him.  PC 5464 then instantly took Mr Ho about 5 meters away from the police van (see paragraph 24).  In cross-examination when Mr Hotten put this was only a very brief glance Mr Ho replied that he was able to see very, very clearly.  Mr Ho disagreed he could not see clearly into the van and repeated he was able to see very, very clearly.  In re-examination Mr Ho described that he was able to see through the window of the police van. 

46.Mr Ho said there was very bright light inside the van.  In cross-examination SPC 54486 confirmed the light was on and explained that the internal light of the van did not automatically come on when the door of the van was opened and that a button was required to be pressed first.

47.In re-examination SPC 54486 said he switched on the lights when the defendants were taken on board the van and that the lighting was bright and remained on throughout the time the police remained at Kau Hui Chik Street.  SPC 54486 further explained that there were two buttons.  One for two fluorescent lights, one on the ceiling between the driver and the first row of seats and one on the ceiling above the second row of seats.  The second button was for what SPC 54486 described as a desk lamp (similar to the microphone used in court for recording proceedings).  This light was to one side of the second row of seats.  SPC 54486 said he switched on all the lights.  PC 4423 also confirmed the light was turned on by SPC 54486 and that the light inside the van was bright but said all the lights were not turned on.

Quality of the identification

48.I have closely examined all the circumstances in which the identification was made by Mr Ho, including the opportunity Mr Ho had to look at the three South Asian males; the lighting condition, and that this was identification of strangers. 

49.Although Mr Ho describes being face to face with the robbers as they approached him and therefore recognised them as the same three males he had seen earlier Mr Ho clearly would not have been able to see the faces of the robbers throughout the robbery, which lasted roughly 20-30 seconds, in particular as he put his hands up to fend off the blows to his face and fell to the ground. 

50.There are no particular features of the three South Asian Males which made Mr Ho recognise them.  Failure to recognise specific features of the face is not all that surprising as not everyone has prominent features.  What is important is the impression left by the three males to enable Mr Ho to identify them. Repeatedly Mr Ho said they left a deep impression on him because he had seen the look in their eyes.

51.Much has been said about Mr Ho describing the defendants as having dark circles around their eyes (“eye bags”).  This first arose when Mr Ho gave a description of the three South Asian males he saw on the 26 October.  Mr Ho said the thing he recognised most was the dark circles around their eyes.  This was not however the reason Mr Ho said he recognised the two males in the police van.

52.In cross-examination Mr Ho repeated that immediately he looked up he recognised the defendants were two of the robbers.  At that time Mr Ho did not pay attention to what they were wearing and only recognised their faces.  Mr Ho explained that he had a deep impression when they rushed over to him and recalled that he had seen them the night before but was unable to tell of any facial features.  When asked by Mr Hotten if he recognised the defendants because of the dark circles under their eyes Mr Ho replied definitely not because of this reason and again said he had a deep impression from the fact he was robbed, hit and injured, which reminded him he had seen them the day before.

53.When Mr Hotten suggested that on seeing two south Asian males in the police van Mr Ho instantly put together two and two and said these were people who robbed him Mr Ho replied, “No assumption at all.  100% that those were the two and I was able to see very clearly”.  When put he had no more than a glimpse Mr Ho disagreed and said this was not a glimpse but a stare whereby he fixed his gaze on them. Mr Ho further explained a glimpse was different from focusing your gaze at something.

54.Whilst the two earlier incidents on the 22 or 23 and 26 October can be described as a glance lasting only 2-3 seconds I do not accept that the identification of the defendants as two of the robbers depends on a fleeting glance only.  The robbery was 20-30 seconds with the background of having seen them on two previousoccasions. Mr Hohad a deep impression from the fact he was robbed, hit and injured, which reminded him he had seen them the day before.  Although Mr Ho had a deep impression of the robbers taking into account the circumstances of the robbery, whilst permitting a longer observation, the identification was clearly in difficult conditions, I am satisfied the court should look for evidence which goes to support the correctness of Mr Ho’s identification. 

Supporting evidence

55.I therefore turn to consider whether the circumstances the defendants came to be arrested by the police are capable of supporting the identification.  I will first briefly set out the police evidence.  SPC 54486 (PW2), who was in plainclothes together with other officers, including PC 5464 (PW4), who was in uniform, responded to a call on the consul at 19:39 to go to the car park behind Jade Plaza to attend an incident concerning someone “shouting for help”.  It is to be noted here this is not in response to the 999 call made by Mr Ho but a different 999 call.

56.The police team went by police van to On Man Square opposite Jade Plaza (marked by SPC 54486 with a red ∆ on a copy of the street map, exhibit P2B).  On arrival at 19:48 SPC 54486 heard the voice of a woman shout loudly snatching but was not sure the source of the voice.  At the same time SPC 54486 saw some passers-by were pointing to the direction of Treasure Garden.  PC 5464 heard a passer-by saying “Somebody snatching something, running away” and at the same time pointing in the direction of Tai Po market. The passer-by also said one was wearing a red top and the other a red and black checked top. 

57.SPC 54486 and PC 5464 therefore ran towards Treasure Garden.  After passing the car park of Treasure Garden SPC 54486 saw other passers-by pointing in the direction of Mei Sun Lane.  About 5 meters in front the two defendants were seen running.  In cross-examination SPC 54486 disagreed the defendants were standing when he first saw them.  This allegation was not put to PC 5464.

58.SPC 54486 and PC 5464 chased after the defendants shouting loudly in punti dialect “Police, stop running.” The defendants continued to run and without paying attention to the traffic ran across the junction of On Chee Road and Ting Kwok Road (shown in photographs 10-12, exhibit P1).  This was witnessed by PC 4423 (PW3) who had also responded to the same call from the consul and drove to the junction. Whilst stopped at the red traffic light PC 4423 saw the defendants run across the junction followed by SPC 54486 and PC 5464.

59.The defendants ran into Mei Sun Lane and then turned right into Kau Hui Chik Street where SPC 54486 and PC 5464 intercepted them at 19:50.  PC 4423 drove along Mei Sun Lane. As Kau Hui Chik Street was a one-way street PC 4423 turned right at Chui Lok Street and followed the road round until he reached the entrance to Kau Hui Chik Street where he stopped the car.  PC 4423 alighted and on arriving outside Cambridge nursery he saw the two defendants being chased by SPC 54486 and PC 5464.  PC 4423 went forward and also intercepted the defendants.

60.The route SPC 54486 and PC 5464 chased the defendants is shown on the same copy of the street map, exhibit P2B with the position where the officers were when they first saw the defendants marked with a red O and the position of the two defendants marked with two blue circles.  PC 5464 also drew the route on another copy of the street map, exhibit P2D.

61.SPC 54486 and PC 4423 made enquiries with D1 and D2 respectively.  SPC 54486 spoke to D1 in punti because D1 spoke to him in punti.  In cross-examination SPC 54486 said that he could have a conversation with D1 in punti dialect although he described the fluency of D1’s punti as average.  PC 4423 agreed in his witness statement D2 answered his enquiries in non fluent punti.

Odd coincidence

62.Mr Ho finished work at about 19:45 and went to collect his bicycle.  As he got on his bicycle he was robbed.  The time the police received the 999 call from Mr Ho has not been given in evidence.  However in answer to the court SPC 54486 said that at roughly 19:50 after intercepting the defendants he heard over the consul a second 999 report about robbery.  I am satisfied the only inference to draw is that SPC 54486 and PC 5464 had seen the defendants running very shortly after the robbery. 

63.The location where the defendants were seen running was on the opposite side of On Cheung Road not far from where the robbery took place.  Although Mr Ho did not see the defendants cross On Cheung Road as he was concentrating on the one who snatched the money bag he did see them run to the left in the direction of On Cheung Road (see paragraphs 17-19). 

64.The defendants were wearing clothing similar to the description given by Mr Ho, namely one in red and the other in a lighter coloured checked top.  I accept the evidence of SPC 54486 and PC 4423 that they communicated with the defendants in punti.  Albeit D1’s punti was said to be average and D2’s non fluent I am satisfied the only inference to draw is the defendants knew they were being chased by the police.

65.It is an odd coincidence that Mr Ho identified the defendants who were wearing similar clothing to two of the robbers and had been seen by the police running away very shortly after and not far from where the robbery took place.  In Turnbull it was said that odd coincidences can, if unexplained, be supporting evidence. 

66.After careful consideration I am satisfied this evidence does support the identification of the defendants by Mr Ho, which identification was spontaneous and made about 10 minutes after the robbery.  Having carefully considered all the evidence and the circumstances of the identification I find I am satisfied so I am sure that Mr Ho has correctly identified the two defendants as two of the robbers. 

67.In reaching my verdict I have carefully considered the submission of Mr Hotten, including that there was no identification parade; no confrontation; the identification of the defendants in a police van is similar to a dock identification; and that in court Mr Ho was unable to identify D1.  Nothing said by Mr Hotten causes me to doubt the identification made by Mr Ho.  I am satisfied so I am sure there are no material and significant discrepancies, improbabilities or omissions in the evidence, which cause me to doubt the findings I have made.  I am satisfied so I am sure the prosecution have proved all the elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt as against each defendant, the case of each defendant having been considered separately.  The defendants are convicted of robbery.