(£)
gave the jury the impression that
the last few pages of the Appellant's
said cautioned statement, if true,
were "totally damning".
that the learned trial judge failed
sufficiently to point out to the jury
the differences between the said
cautioned statement as being evidence
of guilt of robbery compared with the
matters to be considered when applying
the same to the charge of murder.
(g)
that the learned trial judge wrongly
suggested to the jury that the Appellant's
real intention might have been more
definitely to use highly dangerous
weapons to effect the robbery than
appears from the said statement, because
"it was given over two months later", whereas
this suggestion is totally unsupported by
the evidence.
(h)
that the verdict of the jury, based almost
entirely on the said cautioned statement,
was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
(i)
that on the facts the verdict of the
jury was perversed, unreasonable and
against the weight of the evidence.
3.
THAT your Petitioner was jointly charged
with Cheung Wai Bun and Ly Minh in that on the 27th day
-3-