TNAG-0488-FCO40-553-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 7

J

prisoner, but that he was armed with a knife but did not strike the fatal blow, and that he had no such common intent with the

prisoner, but his intent was merely one of robbery. This of course

is pure surmise on my part.

arms

This case is one typical of so many cases I have had before me in the last few years. A young thug decided to rob, himself with a deadly weapon and uses it quite indiscriminately on anybody who may try to thwart him with callous disregard as to whether

he kills his victim or not. However there is one somewhat bizarre

aspect to this case. Originally the case came before Trainor J. and both the prisoner and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to all three charges on arraignment, and were put in charge of the jury. The jury were then sent away so that in their absence a preliminary point of law could be decided, to wit, whether the statements of the prisoner and his co-accused were admissible in evidence as the defence had

alleged that they were not voluntary, having been obtained by force. Before the evidence was heard with regard to this by way of voir dire proceedings counsel for the defence requested a short adjournment and

then came back to court and indicated that his clients wished to

change their plea. The accused were then rearraigned before the learned trial judge in the absence of the jury, whereupon the prisoner pleaded not guilty to the first count of murder, he said in effect, "No, I am not guilty of murder. I will plead guilty to manslaughter." And the Crown accepted that plea, in effect saying, "Very well, we agree you are not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter." On the second and third counts, that is, assault with intent to rob and

wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, the prisoner

pleaded guilty. The prisoner's co-accused when called on again to

plead, pleaded not guilty to murder, and the Crown accepted that

plea, in effect they said, "Very well, we agree you are not guilty

of murder." He pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob, and

that was accepted, and he pleaded not guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Crown again accepted that plea. However, as the prisoner and his co-accused had already been put in

the charge of the jury it was therefore necessary for them to be

once again arraigned in the presence of the jury so that the jury

would hear their change of plea and be directed by the learned trial