IP KWAN-SHUN v. THE QUEEN

CACC000071/1983

IN THE HIGH COURT	1983 No. 71
	(Criminal)

BETWEEN

	IP KWAN-SHUN	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN
	-----------	Respondent

Coram: Jones J.

Date: 2nd May, 1983.

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

 

1. The appellant, a boy aged 15, was convicted on the 3rd December 1982 of one charge of robbery, one charge of theft, three charges of burglary, one charge of taking a conveyance without authority and three charges of being carried in a conveyance without authority. He was sentenced to be detained in a training centre.

2. The appellant appeals against his convictions.

3. The appellant was unrepresented before the learned magistrate but his father was present during the trial.

4. In respect of the charge of robbery, the appellant on the 24th May 1982 used abusive language to a 13-year old boy Tse Man On, physically assaulted him and stole a silver necklace. The appellant was arrested the same day when he was found to be wearing the silver necklace.

5. On the 2nd September 1982 the appellant drove a van without the owner's authority.

6. The charge of theft was committed on the 22nd September 1982 when the appellant stole a clock which was subsequently found in the appellant's quarters on a table.

7. The evidence relating to the three offences of burglary and three offences of being carried in a conveyance without authority were contained in cautioned statements made by the appellant.

8. It was submitted by Miss Toh for the appellant that the learned magistrate failed to warn himself of the dangers of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices particularly in relation to Charge 3 taking conveyance without authority. However, they were not borne out by the Statement of Findings where the learned magistrate said that he paid especial attention to the credibility of the three accomplices. Further there was evidence in the cautioned statement made on the 22nd September 1982 in which the appellant admitted that he had driven the vehicle.

9. This ground of appeal therefore fails.

10. With regard to ground three I am satisfied that the learned magistrate considered each charge separately.

11. Although there is no specific reference in the record to the fact that the learned magistrate explained to the appellant his right to cross examine and the meaning of cross examination, I have no reason to doubt that he did so. Some questions were, in fact, asked by the appellant in cross examination.

12. It was also contended that the learned magistrate did not. ensure that no force, coercion or inducements were made prior to the taking of the cautioned statements. The learned magistrate asked the appellant several questions with regard to the cautioned statements and decided that they were made voluntarily. There was no evidence to support this complaint. Having perused the transcript of the record I am quite satisfied that the appellant was properly convicted.

13. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

	(B.L. Jones)
	Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Miss Esther Toh (D.L.A.) for Appellant.

Mr. R.K.M. Longley (Legal Department) for Crown/Respondent.