5.
later when he was apprehended by the
police on arrival at Kai Tak, the Hong
Kong Airport.
THAT Your Petitioner shortly thereafter
made a 13 page statement after being cautioned but
mainly in question and answer form, Your Petitioner
made various allegatiors against the police in connection
with this statement which were not believed by the learned
trial judge, who exercised his discretion to admit the
same, in so far as it was taken in breach of the Judge's
Rules.
6.
THAT the case for the Crown against
this Appellant was based on this statement which was
called a confession. The 1st accused gave evidence
that the Appellant knew nothing of this robbery plan
and had only come to know that a robbery had taken
place when he and the 2nd accused went to the Appellant's
place afterwards. The 1st accused also said that he
was provoked by the deceased into attacking, and pointed
out he had himself received a knife wound. The 2nd
accused did not give evidence before the jury.
7.
THAT this Appellant did so give evidence
along the lines of the 1st accused's evidence. He denied
all prior knowledge of the robbery or the agreement to rob. Nevertheless he admitted meeting at the 1st and 2nd
accused at his place for tea on the 26th June when he
made a telephone call to the Hong Kong Hotel to discover the room number of the deceased, but said that was because
-6-
...