R. v. LAW CHI MING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1993, No. 736
(Criminal)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

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

1. On 16 December 1993 the applicant was convicted of a joint offence of robbery and possession of an imitation firearm with intent to commit an arrestable offence before Ryan J and a jury. He was sentenced to a total of 10 years imprisonment. He originally applied for leave to appeal against that conviction but later abandoned that application. Later still he applied for leave to treat that abandonment as a nullity. The court showed him considerable favour in allowing him to do so. It is in those circumstances that this application comes before the court so long after the conviction.

The facts

2. On 13 December 1990 the Chase Manhattan Bank was robbed by two men acting together. They might both have had bags with imitation guns inside and presented slips to tellers on which were written something like "Robbery" and "demanding $50,000". They got money. One of the tellers was able to stuff into the bag - in which she had seen what appeared to be the butt of a gun - a device which frustrated the robbers. The device began to emit red smoke so the bag had to be thrown away. A witness saw this happening and the robbers escaped in a taxi. Eventually the applicant was arrested.

The trial

3. The evidence against him consisted of his fingerprints on a withdrawal slip used in the robbery. It was admitted at trial. He tried to explain the presence of those fingerprints by saying that his co-accused had been in possession of withdrawal slips before the offence and he had handled some of them.

4. Secondly, he admitted the offence on arrest. He signed a document to that effect and following that made a confession in writing to the offence. That confession was a confession in detail. He later demonstrated at the scene what he had done.

The application

5. The grounds he advances for this application are that the exhibits were never produced at trial. It is quite clear, however, as can be seen from the summing-up, that the photographs of the exhibits were admitted into evidence by consent. Also, the fingerprints were admitted and the withdrawal slips on which the fingerprints appeared. When confronted with the admission, the applicant says that he did not sign the consent in the court room - a matter which is totally immaterial. He was represented by experienced counsel who obviously consulted the applicant before making these admissions.

6. There is no basis for allowing this application and it is refused.