statemnet he gave to the police. It would have meant him
admitting before all the world that, because he was
temporarily without work, he was willing to engage in
robbing someone who had, at one time, been his own client.
8.
There should have been no dispute on the basic
facts which are as set out in paragraph 4 of the Petition
for Special Leave, Exh. 3, to which Your Petitioner craves
leave to refer. These were the facts on the Crown's own
evidence and as set out by the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong
in dismissing his Appeal.
0.
Your Petitioner further humbly craves leave to
refer in particular to paragraphs 13 and 15 of the said
Petition for Special Leave and re-affirms that it was not
his intention in any way that his companions should kill or do
grievous bodily harm to Mr. Teyfour, the said deceased. The
plan, as evidenced from his own statement to the police
itself, was to tie Mr. Teyfour up should he come in. Your
Petitioner also repeats that the whole purpose of him not
coming on the robbery to the Hong Kong Hotel was because
otherwise he could be identified afterwards by the man who
was robbed, i.e. Mr. Teyfour.
10.
Crown Counsel obviously had the same impression
of the evidence as Lord Russel in the Privy Council, because
before Your Petitioner's trial started the said Crown Counsel
offered to accept a plea of guilty from Your Petitioner to
manslaughter and robbery, which was communicated to Your
Petitioner by this then counsel. For a reason similar to
4 -