THE QUEEN v. LI SHING BUN AND ANOTHER

________

_____________

J U D G M E N T

_____________

Silke, J.A.:

1. Four defendants appeared for trial on charges relating to forged travel documents. The 2nd defendant - LI Shing-bun - faced a single charge of possession of a forged navel document - British Hong Kong Passport, No. 879251 in respect of which the original photograph had been removed and replaced. The 4th defendant - LAW Yan-tong - faced a single charge of forging that travel document by substituting the original photograph with a photograph of another person.

2. Those two defendants now seek leave to appeal against their convictions upon those charges.

3. The basic evidence in relation to the 2nd defendant was his statement. In his Reasons for verdict the trial judge accepted that it had been said to the 2nd defendant, before he made that statement and by the Immigration Officer who had arrested him, that it would be "best to reveal all and tell the truth and that he should do so quickly." The trial judge went on:

"In the circumstances of this case I did not consider this improper behaviour."

4. It is quite clear that, with respect to him, the behaviour was improper. But that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not this was an inducement such as to render the statement involuntary. It is certainly capable of doing so.

5. There were subsequent statements in which inducements were also alleged though we are not, without a full transcript, aware of what nature of those allegations was. Nevertheless the admission that that which I have recited was said to the defendant is in our view sufficient to amount to an inducement and the matter was not considered by the trial judge on that basis.

6. In those circumstances we think the conviction of the 2nd defendant to be unsafe and unsatisfactory. The conviction will be quashed and the sentence set aside.

7. In respect of the 4th defendant there was reference in the Judge's Reasons for Verdict to allegations of "threats, assaults and inducements." We are not aware as to what that inducement was said to be. It is preferable that his application for leave to appeal against conviction be adjourned and that there be provided a transcript of the evidence relating to the admissibility of his statement or statements.

8. The order therefore will be that, in respect of the 2nd defendant, the application is granted, the appeal allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside. In respect of the 4th defendant, we adjourn to a date to be fixed in consultation with Counsel.