R. v. NG TIN PO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No.480
(Criminal)

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Power, Ag. C.J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant at trial faced five counts of robbery. He was charged in three of the counts with one other person and in two was charged alone. He was tried before Deputy Judge Bokhary and a jury and was convicted on each count. Upon conviction he was sentenced to seven years on each count but all of the sentences were ordered to be concurrent. He now seeks leave to appeal against both convictions and sentences.

2. Four of the convictions rested solely upon his cautioned statement. In that cautioned statement he made an admission of complicity in each of the robberies. The fifth one he denied but there was evidence from the victim that she could identify him and had done so at an identification parade.

3. He suggested today before this court that his conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory as the statement had been obtained from him by force and coercion. It was for the judge in the voir dire proceedings to determine whether the statement should be admitted and then for the jury to determine the weight they would give to it. They were carefully warned as to the way in which they should approach the acceptance of the admissions in the statement and we find no fault with the summing-up in that regard.

4. The applicant complains that in one of the offences which he admitted there was no victim identified. While this is so it assists him in no way.

5. He also complains that the offence which he denied rests solely upon the identification evidence. He suggests that the victim knew him because he lived in the neighbourhood and wrongly identified him relying upon her prior knowledge of his appearance. This again was a matter for the jury. They were carefully warned by the judge. They heard all of the evidence and were satisfied that the victim was a witness of truth. There is nothing which calls for our interference.

6. He complains finally that the first accused was acquitted although the evidence against that accused was very similar to the evidence presented against him. That may well be so but it was a matter for the jury. They clearly were not satisfied as to guilt of the first accused but were satisfied as to the guilt of the applicant.

7. Nothing has been urged which makes us in any way think that the convictions were either unsafe or unsatisfactory and the applications for leave to appeal against conviction must therefore be refused.

8. The applicant has also sought leave to appeal against the overall sentence of seven years. This was imposed in relation to five charges of robbery. They were lift robberies in which the victims were threatened.

9. The judge said when sentencing:

"... you have been convicted on five counts of robbery by the jury's verdicts. All the robberies are lift robberies which have taken place in the course of less than two months. You are 19 years' old and you have a number of previous convictions ...."

She said she took into account all of the mitigation advanced on his behalf but also bore in mind the elements of aggravation which accompanied the robberies. She detailed them as follows:

"A knife was displayed to the victim of the robbery charged under the 2nd count. A hard object was pointed against the neck of the victim in the robbery charge under the 3rd count. A key was pressed against the neck of the victim of the robbery charged under the 4th count. A fist was pressed against the neck of the victim of the robbery charged under the 1st count, and she was pushed.

Having borne all of those in mind she came to the conclusion that an overall sentence of seven years was appropriate. We cannot find fault with this sentence. It takes into account all of the relevant factors and it takes account also of the totality of the overall sentence.

10. The application for leave to appeal against sentence must also be refused.