TNAG-0554-FCO40-649-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 71

- 5-

that at no stage was he armed with a weapon of any kind, but he could still have intended that anyone who was armed should use his weapon in effecting the escape and the jury were entitled to conclude that that was his intention, for he cannot have been ignorant of the fact that some of his companions were carrying pistols.

As to the sixth Defendant counsel urged that there was no evidence that he returned to the Valley Road Estate and that therefore there was insufficient evidence that he ever intended to go there: it followed that he could not be responsible for a killing which occurred while the others were trying to reach that estate. Again, this seems to us to be altogether too subtle an approach. The jury obviously thought that the whole series of events took place within such a short space of time and was of such a character as to leave no doubt that all

was

those taking part in the robbery intended that firearms be used to effect the escape and if the sixth Defendant did not go to the estate that fact was no more indicative of his having separated from what was plainly the original plan than was the throwing away of a knife during the course of the escape.

For these reasons the applications of the second, sixth, seventh and ninth Defendants for leave to appeal against conviction are also dismissed.

2nd December 1974.