R. v. WONG KA HO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 345
(Criminal)

____________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for robbery. He pleaded not guilty before Deputy Judge Lau. After a trial he was convicted of the offence.

2. On the evening of 6 April 1994 the applicant and three of his friends boarded a taxi in Happy Valley. The taxi driver PW1 was instructed to proceed to a destination at Wun Sha Street. When the taxi got to Sun Chuen Street, one of the men produced a knife and declared a robbery. PW1 was relieved of $750 in cash and the items referred to in the charge and was punched in the face. Also the lead to his microphone of his radio was severed.

3. The men then ran away from the taxi. PW1 pursued them and was able to attract the attention of two police officers who also took part in the pursuit. The applicant and one of the other men were caught.

4. The police officer who caught the applicant gave evidence that he found a bundle of banknotes in the applicant's pocket.

5. Later at the police station the applicant made a cautioned statement. In this statement he admitted that one of his friends had suggested that they should do a job and that he had been in the taxi when a robbery had occurred. He also admitted receiving the banknotes which his friend had passed to him in the taxi.

6. At the trial the applicant contested the admissibility of his cautioned statement. For the reasons he gave Deputy Judge Lau was satisfied at the appropriate level that the statement was a voluntary statement.

7. The applicant did not give evidence in the main trial.

8. Deputy Judge Lau accepted the evidence of PW1 and the police officers and was satisfied of the truth of the contents of the voluntary statement and convicted the applicant.

9. In his grounds of appeal the applicant claimed that he had not had any knowledge of the robbery and that when the robbery had occurred he had left the taxi.

10. Before us he did not add anything further. There was ample evidence to support this conviction. Nothing which has been said by the applicant has led us to believe that this conviction was in way unsafe or unsatisfactory and accordingly the application is dismissed.