THE QUEEN v. TAM POON KIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Fuad, V. P. (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. The Anplicant, Tam Poon Kit, appeared before His Honour Judge Caird in the District Court, with two other men (D1 and D2) on a charge of robbery. He was, on 17th March 1988, convicted and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. The other two men were acquitted. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.

2. The facts sought to be proved by the prosecution were that in the early hours of the morning, of 2nd April 1987; the two victims of the robbery, a man and his girlfriend, were accosted by four men while they were walking along the promenade outside the Regent Hotel. The Applicant, D1 and D2 were three of these men. The fourth had not been found. The girl tried to run away but was caught and brought back to her boyfriend. She was then touched and spoken to in an indecent manner. A threat was made that she would be burned with cigarettes. The men, who had at least two knives with them, took a watch and $250 from the male victim, and from the girl, a gold necklace, a gold ring and $150. They were then tied to a railing, while the four men made off.

3. The learned judge was not happy about the evidence of identity in relation to D1 and D2 for reasons that he gave.

4. As regards the Applicant, the girl identified him at an identification parade four days after his arrest but some eight months after the robbery. The judge indicated that had the identification evidence stood alone, the Applicant would have been acquitted with the other two men. But the Applicant had made a statement under caution on the day following his arrest, a statement which was admitted in evidence after a voir dire. In that statement he admitted that he had taken part in the robbery with three other men whom he named. As to the part he played in the robbery, he said: "I only helped by pressing the male's, shoulder and [I] told him not to move." He also said that the proceeds of the robbery had been shared out but that he himself had not taken a share.

5. In his grounds of appeal, the Applicant's main complaint is that he was forced to sign the confession after being assaulted by the police. The judge went into this question in the voir dire and was satisfied that the statement was made voluntarily. There is no merit in the application. It is dismissed.