Lau Siu-hung v. The Queen
|
CACC000135/1971 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 1971 -----------------
Coram: Rigby, C.J. Date of Judgment: 16th April, 1971. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant, a young man aged 21, was convicted of the charge preferred against him of robbery - an offence allegedly committed by the appellant together with four other persons. 2. At the appellant's trial a young couple gave evidence that shortly before 9 p.m. on the 14th December they were sitting on a bench in a quiet and secluded area somewhere near the Government School at Chai Wan when they were suddenly approached by five male persons who forcibly removed from them their personal possessions; the young man's cash, wrist-watch, ring, fountain pen and identity card and the girl's necklace and ring. They were unable to identify or give a description of their assailants. That happened on the 14th December. 3. On the 13th January, a police party stopped the appellant in the street. It is said that the appellant then and there, on being taxed with the commission of this offence, made a free and voluntary statement which, if believed, implicated him as a party to the commission of this offence. There was no other evidence whatsoever against the appellant. At his trial, the appellant denied ever making an such statement in the street at the time of his arrest. He said that he was taken back to the police station, that he was there accused of robbing a couple at Shaukiwan, that he was assaulted and that he was then told to sign a statement which had been already written down in a police constable's notebook. He was told that if he did not sign it he would be further beaten up. Under pressure he signed that statement. Upon the contents of that statement, the appellant was convicted of the offence preferred against him. 4. It is sufficient to say that Crown Counsel does not seek to support this conviction; indeed, he says that if the Attorney General's Chambers had been consulted in the matter of prosecution, no prosecution would in fact have been instituted solely upon the uncorroborated (and subsequently retracted) admission or confession of the accused. Crown Counsel, of his own accord, concedes that on the slender evidence produced it would be unsafe to allow this conviction to stand. 5. I see no reason to disagree, either in principle or upon the facts of the case, with the view which the Crown has taken. The appeal will accordingly be allowed, the conviction quashed and the sentence set aside. Representation: |