LUI YIU-SHING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000888/1980

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1980 No. 888

BETWEEN
	LUI Yiu-shing	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Roberts, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 21st November, 1980.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. I grant the appellant an extension of time for entering an appeal, against his conviction on 1st October, 1980, although he pleaded guilty at his trial.

2. I do so because the circumstances were such as to leave me with a feeling that injustice might have been done to him.

3. The appellant is hardly eighteen and was not represented at his trial.

4. He first pleaded guilty before Mr. Edwards on 30th August, 1980. This plea was rejected by the magistrate on the ground that the facts were unclear. These were presumably the facts mentioned in the statement of Brief Facts attached to the record and dated 29th August, 1980 ("Brief Facts").

5. On 1st September the appellant again pleaded guilty. This time before Mr. Byrne. His case was fixed for hearing on 1st October, when he appeared before Mr. Lim.

6. The facts (presumably the Brief Facts) were read and explained to the appellant, who admitted them. The appellant's plea of guilty was rejected and a plea of not guilty entered.

7. Later the same day, he appeared before Mr. Byrne and pleaded guilty. The prosecution led facts which were admitted by the appellant.

8. Included in these latter facts, as recorded by the magistrate, was an assertion that the appellant assaulted the victim. This is at variance with the Brief Facts, which allege only that the appellant admitted that he was present at the robbery but did not take part.

9. It appears that a large group of youths were together in Salisbury Road on the evening of 17th August and that some of them robbed a man of his pendant with some degree of violence.

10. It is quite likely, in such circumstances, that only some of the group would have taken part in the robbery, and I fear that the appellant might, when pleading guilty, have meant to admit that he was there and nothing more.

11. The variations between the Brief Facts and those recited to Mr. Byrne also causes me concern. If the defendant had himself hit the victim, I would have expected this to be in Brief Facts which were put before the court in the earlier proceedings.

12. Both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Lim, who are experienced and careful magistrates, rejected the appellant's plea of guilty though they do not give reasons for this.

13. The last magistrate who dealt with the matter was fully entitled to accept the plea and to convict the appellant on his own admission.

14. Nevertheless, I am left with some degree of doubt lest the appellant might have been wrongly convicted.

15. I therefore quash the conviction and sentence and order that he be retried before another magistrate.

16. Bail is granted in his own recognizance in the sum of $250, plus one surety in the sum of $1,000 to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

 

Representation:

Mullick (Samuel Soo & Co.) for appellant.

Cagney for Crown.