CHINESE ROBBED

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 260, 29 July 1932, Page 13

CHINESE ROBBED

Two Men Before Court TAKING OF STATEMENTS Defence Questions Action WOMAN IN THE CASE Two young men, Albert Ernest Clifton,, labourer, aged 24, and Leonard Humphreys, salesman, aged 23, stood their trial before his Honour Mr. Justice Reed in the . Supreme Court yesterday afternoon on charges of robbing Ah Lai of about £4 and at the same time using personal violence. There were two further charges, one of assaulting Ah Lai so as to cause actual bodily harm and one of assault. Both accused, . who were represented by the same counsel, pleaded not guilty. The trial will be resumed this morning.

The Crown Prosecutor said that Ah Lai was a Chinese fruiterer with a shop at the corner of Pirie Street and Ellice Avenue. On the night of the robbery, July 15, a girl had visited Ah Lai and was leaving his shop into Ellice Avenue when he was attacked by two men. Both accused had made statements admitting their guilt

Counsel for accused Intimated that he intended to object to the statements. 'He asked that references to the statements be withheld until his objection had been considered. The chief witness for the Crown was Ah Lai, who gave his evidence through an interpreter. When, he •opened the back gate to let a woman out on the night of July 15 two men entered and pointed guns at him. They carried him into his kitchen and tied his hands. When he called out they struck at him. He was seriously injured under the eye and on the jaw, chin and head.

While on the floor he was gagged and tied with a necktie. About £4 was taken from the till in the shop. While he was on the floor he heard one of the men talking to a woman outside. After the men left he could still hear them talking. After freeing himself he washed the blood oft his face and then went for assistance. Presence of Woman. . . Cross-examined by counsel for the accused Ah Lai.'said he was married, his wife living in. China. The person he had let out the gate at the rear of his premises was a white woman of about 22 years of age. She had come to his shop earlier in the day. Counsel: Were you reprimanded by the men for having a white girl on the premises?—“No.” Is it not a fact that , you became frightened and attacked the two men? —“NO.”, Detective Hayhurst, who had interviewed the accused, said.they had both made statements. Objection to the production of the statements was taken by counsel for accused. It was sought by the prosecution, he said, to introduce two statements alleged to have been made by the- two accused on the night of July 16. It was intended to produce sworn evidence of the accused themselves, who would say the statements were obtained as the direct result of inducements held out tp thepi to make fl' statements. On those grounds he submitted that the prosecution was under a duty to produce an affirmation that the statements were made voluntarily and without any inducement, promise, or threat. If his Honour so directed it might be proper to allow him to cross-examine the witness before the statements were admitted. His Honour: I think this is the right time to take formal evidence. Counsel •an cross-examine before the statements are put in. ; • No Promise Made. In reply to counsel for accused Detective’ Hayhurst said the statements were made in the detective office. At that stage the accused were not under arrest. Thtfy were at the station voluntarily, and had they wished to do so he could not have stopped them going home. The statements were made without any inducement or promise on his part Continuing his evidence, the detective said he had told Clifton he could not compel him to make a statement. Clifton had asked if he made a statement would he be allowed to go home that night, but witness had told Him he could not make any promise. Clifton’s statement had been read : to Humphreys before the latter had made one, Humphreys was anxious to know whether the girl was to be charged. The girl was allowed to go for there was no evidence on which she could be charged. ' He had pointed out to Humphreys it was not his place to suggest one thing or another about the girl. - ;

Counsel submitted that on the detective’s evidence there seemed to be consciously, or unconsciously—he was prepared to say unconsciously—more than a strong suggestion that something had been said that Indicated the girl would not be-brought into the matter if statements were made. The detective denied having- held out any Inducement that if the accused made statements nothing would be done concerning the girl. Humphreys’s statement had not been obtained until Clifton’s statement had. been shown him. ■ Statements Voluntarily Made.

Counsel: Is it not against instructions where two accused are retained in custody to take a statement from one in the absence of the other, and then submit it to the second accused? —“No. It depends upon the circumstances. The statements were made voluntary and Clifton requested that jhis be shown to Humphrey. His Honour: The English Court of . Appeal has held that can be done. Counsel: Had you formed in your mind, an impression that this girl was a decoy for the men?—Yes; I have quite definitely since. “.On the evidence,” said counsel, “I suggest that the statements were not obtained in accordance with ordinary practice and should not be admitted.” In . reply to his Honour, Detective Hayhurst said he gave the accused formal-warning that anything they said could be used in evidence against them, and in addition it had been included in the statements. His Honour admitted the statements, the contents of which were then read by the Witness. In these the accused admitted the hold-up. The hearing was adjourned until this morning.'