WONG CHING WAH v. THE QUEEN

CACC000465/1976

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1976 No. 465.

-----------------

 

BETWEEN
	WONG CHING WAH	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Huggins, J.A.

Date of Judgment: 27th May 1976.

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The Appellant is a girl of 16 who was charged before the magistrate with blackmail. She pleaded Guilty and that plea was accepted by the magistrate, who thereupon sentenced her to detention in a training centre. On the day she came up for sentence there was an application on her behalf to allow her to change her plea. She was then represented by a solicitor, having previously appeared in person. Nothing can be said against the magistrate in respect of the proceedings at the first hearing: he took a plea; the Appellant said that she pleaded Guilty; the facts were read to her and she said that she admitted those facts. Not until then did the magistrate say that he convicted her on her plea. He had no reason then to believe that the plea was not a perfectly voluntary and proper plea.

2. Mr. Gunston, who appeared later, submitted that she should be allowed to change her plea because she had been persuaded to admit the offence. It was suggested that she had been over-awed in court. It does not appear from the magistrate's notes who or what persuaded her other than this fact that she was over-awed by the surroundings of the court, but in the Notice of Appeal it is alleged that she was wrongfully induced by the arresting officer to enter a plea of Guilty.

3. Now, as I said, the plea in the first instance appeared to be a perfectly proper one and, unless it can be said that her consent to plead was in some way nullified by what happened, the plea must stand. It is material that this girl is very young. On the other hand it is material that the first mention of persuasion by a police officer appears to be in the Notice of Appeal. What, however, worries me is that the learned magistrate did not apparently make any proper enquiry into the facts at the time that Mr. Gunston made his application. The question was then one of fact, whether or not the plea was her plea or whether it was a plea made under duress. That, in my view, was a matter which should have been investigated as a matter of fact and probably on oath. No enquiry was made: the magistrate merely says that in all the circumstances he was satisfied that the plea should not be allowed to be withdrawn. His conclusion may have been right, but in my view there was not sufficient enquiry. I am not going to embark upon an enquiry at this stage and justice requires that this girl be given the opportunity to reverse her plea and make her defence.

4. That being so the appeal will be allowed and an order made accordingly.

 

 27th May 1976.

 

Representation: