{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f183\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f184\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f186\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f187\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f189\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f190\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f191\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid14306437 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\ts15\tsrowd\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \sbasedon11 \snext15 \styrsid10113797 Table Grid;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid811014 \rsid862776\rsid1009808\rsid1598413\rsid1651653\rsid1972231\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2371452\rsid2504626\rsid2506087\rsid3176464\rsid3422714\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4019172\rsid4160285\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4744076\rsid4815830 \rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid5052173\rsid5062183\rsid5123780\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid5905022\rsid6060947\rsid6160848\rsid6514138\rsid6782860\rsid6953338\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7818236\rsid7958375\rsid8016262\rsid8083724\rsid8270074\rsid8415398 \rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8866877\rsid9189166\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9588246\rsid9599955\rsid9640825\rsid9641430\rsid9776131\rsid10113514\rsid10113797\rsid10355983\rsid10712439\rsid10749241\rsid11014019\rsid11292607\rsid11355540 \rsid11404427\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12015529\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid13574311\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652\rsid14306437\rsid14496123\rsid14510136\rsid14695321 \rsid14838763\rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15864576\rsid15945946\rsid16592213\rsid16597937\rsid16671932}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info {\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author raikatalau_l}{\operator raikatalau_l}{\creatim\yr2011\mo6\dy15\hr16\min23}{\revtim\yr2011\mo6\dy15\hr16\min28}{\version3}{\edmins6}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords3577} {\nofchars17998}{\*\company Pacific Legal Information Institue}{\nofcharsws21456}{\vern24689}}\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800 \dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot14306437\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}} {\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (} {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkstart Bharat_Dwaj_Duve_v_State}BHARAT DWAJ DUVE}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 v}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 STATE \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkend Bharat_Dwaj_Duve_v_State} \par High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts15\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid10113797\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt \clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2448\clshdrawnil \cellx2340\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth6408\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\pararsid4279087 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 2, 9 November, 2001\cell }\pard \ql \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 HAA 49/01S\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts15\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid10113797\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2448\clshdrawnil \cellx2340\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth6408\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Robbery with violence \endash appeal against conviction \endash practice and procedure \endash whether charge defective for failure of particulars - Penal Code ss21(1), 23, 293(1)(b). \par \par Criminal law \endash evidence - whether evidence the Appellant counseled and procured the assailant to commit a robbery \endash whether evidence that Appellant committed an offence }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \endash }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 sharing of intention \endash probable consequence - Penal Code (Cap 17) ss21, 23, 293(1)(b). \par \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 The Appellant security guard with a terminated employee co-accused were charged with robbery with violence of a factory assistant plant manager complainant. After a trial, he was found guilty and the Appellant was sentenced to one year}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s imprisonment suspended for two years. He appealed on the basis that the charge failed to particu larise his involvement in the offence, that there were no evidence of a link between him and the co-accused who assaulted the complainant and committed the robbery, that there was no evidence he counsell ed and procured the co-accused to commit the robbery and that there was no evidence he contemplated the commission of the offence. A caution interview tendered at trial showed he admitted he directed the assault to teach the comp lainant a lesson in his harsh and dictatorial attitude toward staff, but he did not know the name of the co-accused and that he did not give the co-accused anything to punch the complainant. The caution interview was the only factual link that the Appellant had given his permission and consent to the co-accused.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 The Appellant gave sworn evidence that he directed an assault, not a robbery. The appellate Court found that the magistrate correctly directed herself correctly on the standard and burden of proof, and on the admissibility of the Appellant}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s confessions to police. The magistrate accepted the contents of the interview, the evidence of the complainant and a witness and found as a matter of fact that the Appellant had counselled a Fijian youth to assau lt the complainant. The appellate Court found the evidence of the co-accused to the complainant was inadmissible, being an out of court statement by a co-accused against the Appellant. The evidence that the Appellant was often seen talking to a taxi-driver of a get-away taxi was discounted as the taxi-driver was not charged as an accomplice. \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Held}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \endash (1) The charge was not defective as section 21 of the Penal Code allows prosecution to charge an accused with either committing an offence or procuring its commi ssion. However, where the prosecution allege aiding and abetting or counseling and procuring, in the interests of fairness, the charge should particularise the real case against an accused. Taking into account the way the defence was conducted and the Appellant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s sworn evidence, the Appellant was not prejudiced by the lack of particulars. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (2) The magistrate was entitled to draw an inference that the Appellant organised and counselled an unknown Fijian man to assault the complainant. The evidence that t he robbers accused the complainant of swearing at their sister did not prevent the magistrate from drawing that inference. Robbery was not foreseeable but on the facts, it was foreseeable that a robbery in the course of an assault was a probable consequen ce. The Appellant must have contemplated that the person he procured to commit an assault might also commit a robbery - the short time frame between the counseling and the offence leads to the inescapable conclusion (to which he himself agreed under caution ) that the offence was the one counselled. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 The Magistrate was correct in directing herself to accept the contents of the police statement and for drawing the inference that it was the Appellant who counseled the assault. Appeal against conviction fails. \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Cases referred to in Judgment \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Attorney-General}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s Reference}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (No. 1/75) (1975) 61 Cr.App.R. 118 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (1978) 3 All ER 1140 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 R v Bradfoot}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (1976) 64 Cr. App. R. 7 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 R v Bullock}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (1955) 1 WLR 1 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 R v Gunewardene}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (1951) 35 Cr App R 80 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Saunder and Archer}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (1573) Plowden 473 \par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Thambiah v R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (1966) AC 37 \par \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Mehboob Raza for the Appellant \par T. Romanu for the Respondent \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts15\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid10113797\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt \clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2268\clshdrawnil \cellx2160\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth6588\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\pararsid8597369 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 9 November, 2001.\cell }\pard \ql \li1512\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1512\pararsid10113797 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 JUDGMENT\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts15\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid10113797\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2268\clshdrawnil \cellx2160\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth6588\clshdrawnil \cellx8748\row }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Shameem, J.}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 On 11th May 2001, the Appellant was found guilty of the following offence: \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Statement of Offence}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE:}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Contrary to {\*\bkmkstart s293_1_b_PC_Bharat_Duve_v_State}Section 293(1)(b){\*\bkmkend s293_1_b_PC_Bharat_Duve_v_State} of the Penal Code, Cap. 17. \par \~ \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Particulars of Offence}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 TOMU MASAU, BHARAT DWAJ DUVE s/o DRON ACHARI with another on the 8t h day of April 2000 at Suva in the Central Division robbed RICHARD LEONG of $52.00 cash and immediately before such robbery used personal violence on the said RICHARD LEONG. \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \~ \par He was sentenced to one year}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s imprisonment, suspended for two years. \par \par He now appeals against his conviction on the following grounds:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 a)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in convicting the accused when there was no evidence that the Appellant counselled and procured the assailant to commit the robbery; \par \par b)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact when there was no evidence that the Appellant committed the offence. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par At the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the charge failed to particularise the Appellant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s involvement in the offence, that the evidence failed to disclose a link between the Appellant and the person who committed the robbery, that the evidence of the caution interview failed to prove that the person hired by the Appellant was in fact the person who committed the robbery, and lastly, that even if the Appellant had hired the assailants, he could not have contemplated the commission of the offence of Robbery with Violence. \par \par State Counsel submitted that the Appellant, in his police interview had confessed to planning and counselling the commission of the offence, which had already taken place, and that there was enough evidence for the learned Magistrate to draw inferences about his participation in the offence. \par \par The evidence at the trial was that on the 8th of April 2000, at about 8am, the Assistant Plant Manager, Richard Leong, opened the Hantex Apparel Factory at Walu Bay, when two Fijian men came into the office. They asked him for his name and accused him of swearing at their sister. They then punched him twice on the mouth, causing him injuries. They took his purse which had $52.00 in it. They then left the office. Richard Leong followed them shouting }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "} {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 robbery.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 The men left in a red taxi. Leong gave chase in his van, but lost them on Foster Road. He was later told that the robbers had been apprehended. He went to the police station and saw one of the robbers there. He told Richard Leong that the security guard had told him }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 to do this.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par \par At the time of the robbery, the taxi driver was seen by Vinay Singh, a driver for Hantex Apparel, to be talking to the Appellant outside the factory. This witness had seen the taxi-driver and the Appellant speaking to each other on previous occasions. \par \par The Appellant was interviewed under caution by Detective Constable Nazir Mohammed who alleged that the Appellant had }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 hired or directed some people including Tomu Masau of Tacirua Village to punch and rob one Richard Leong ... of $52.00 cash between 0740hrs to 0800hrs on 8/4/2000 at his office at 22 Freeston Road Walu Bay namely Hantex Style Apparel.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par \par The allegation was therefore clear and specific. He was asked (at Q16):- }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 did anything unusual happen today whilst you were at your work?}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 His answer was: }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Yes, one of our production manager Richard was punched and robbed.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 He said he was aware of the incident and at Answer 21 he said: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Our Production Manager Richard}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s attitude towards the staffs is too harsh and he is a dictator. He is also terminating too many people without any genuine excuses. Because of this no one likes him at work so I figured to bring in some people to teach him a lesson. Because of this I told a Fijian man to punch the manager.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par \par The Constable then asked him }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 So that means that what happened today was directed by you?}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 The answer was }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Yes.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 He was asked at Question 24: }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 When did you tell this Fijian boy to punch and rob the production manager?}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 His answer was: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 On Thursday 6/4/2000 at Walu Bay.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par \par The Appellant said that he did not know the name of the boy hired, and that he did not give him anything to do the job. At Question 31 he was asked: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 That means what happened today was done with your permission and consent since you were the one who had arranged for this robbery to take place? A: }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Yes.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 These were the significant portions of the police interview. \par \par The learned Magistrate, in her Judgment directed herself correctly on the standard and burden of proof, and on the admissibility of police confessions. She accepted the contents of the interview, and the evidence of Richard Leong and Vinay Singh and found as a matter of fact that the Appellant had counselled two Fijian youths to assault the complainant. She found further (at page 5 of her judgment) that }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 ... it was foreseeable that given the accused}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s knowledge that the assailants were unemployed, the probability of robbery was imminent and he took that risk when he counselled the two Fijian youths.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 She found the Appellant guilty as charged. \par \par }{\b\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 The grounds of appeal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \~}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 The Appellant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s first objection is to the charge. {\*\bkmkstart s21_1_PC_Bharat_Duve_v_State}Section 21(1) {\*\bkmkend s21_1_PC_Bharat_Duve_v_State}of the Penal Code allows the prosecution to charge an accused either with committing the offence, or with procuring its commissio n. Thus, the charge is not defective in principle. However, where the prosecution alleges aiding and abetting or counselling or procuring, it is in most cases desirable that the particulars of offence should reflect the nature of the allegation. In }{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkstart DPP_Northern_v_Maxwell_Bharat_Duve_v_S}DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkend DPP_Northern_v_Maxwell_Bharat_Duve_v_S}(1978) 3 All ER 1140, the prosecution charged Maxwell with the principal offence although the case against h im was that he had aided and abetted the principal offenders. The House of Lords held (per Lords Dilhorne, Hailsham and Edmund Davies at pp 1142, 1146 and 1148) that the particulars of offence should have disclosed with greater clarity the real nature of the case against the Appellant. However because the framing of the charge on the basis that the Appellant was a principal offender was permitted by statute in England (the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861) no objection could be taken to it. \par \par I echo those sentiments in this case. The charge is not defective because of the provisions of section 21, but it is advisable in the interests of fairness for the prosecution to particularise the real case against the accused in the Particulars of Offence. In this ca se, the Appellant was not prejudiced by the lack of particulars, and this is apparent from the way in which the defence case was conducted, and in which the Appellant gave evidence. It is clear that he knew the nature and particulars of the case against him. This submission fails. \par \par The second objection was that there was no factual link between the Appellant and the assailants. The evidence of Richard Leong that the assailant told him that the security guard had hired him to commit the offence, is inadmissi ble, because it is an out of court statement by an accused against his co-accused. The only exception is a statement made by a co-Defendant in the course of a joint criminal enterprise }{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Gunewardene_Bharat_Duve_v_State}R v Gunewardene}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkend R_v_Gunewardene_Bharat_Duve_v_State}(1951) 35 Cr App R 80. \par \par Nor am I impressed with the evidence that the Appellant was often seen talking to the taxi driver who drove the robbers away after the robbery. There is no evidence that the taxi-driver was charged as an accomplice, and no evidence that he was a party to the robbery. Constable Nazir agreed, in his evidence, that Tomu Masau, the person who committed the robbery, was never identified by the Appellant as being the person he hired to assault Richard Leong. The only real evidence of the }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 factual link}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 is therefore derived from the caution interview. In that interview the Appellant said that he told a Fijian boy to punch the manager on the 6th of April 2000 (two days before the robbery) and said that the incident occurred with his }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 permission and consent.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par \par Of course, in his sworn evidence, the Appellant said that he did not tell the Fijian boy to rob Richard Leong, only to assault him, and he had given those instructions in March 1998. He said he did not know any Tomu Masau , but had asked a Fijian boy (whose name he did not know) who had his employment at Hantex Garments, terminated. He said he had been forced to make a statement at the police station, that his answer at Question 24 was fabricated by the police and that he was shown Tomu Masau at the station, and said that they did not know each other. \par \par However, the learned Magistrate accepted the contents of his police statement (as she was entitled to, having correctly directed herself on its admissibility) and by implication, rejected his sworn evidence. \par \par On the basis of the caution interview, she was entitled to draw the inference that the Appellant organised, and counselled an unknown Fijian man to assault Richard Leong. She was entitled to accept, that such counselling occurred only two days before the robbery, and that therefore the robbery on 8th April 2000, on Richard Leong was more than mere coincidence. She was entitled to accept on the evidence that it was the Appellant who had persuaded a Fijian boy to assault Richard Leong. To that end, she did not err. I do not think that the evidence that the robbers accused Richard Leong of swearing at their sister prevented her from drawing the inference that it was the Appellant who counselled the assault. This submission therefore fails. \par \par However, a far more difficult question is whether, on the basis that the Appellant did counsel an assault, he is also responsible for the robbery. \par \par Section 21 of the Penal Code provides as follows:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (1) When an offence has been committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say - \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (d) any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par In the last-mentioned case he may be charged either with committing the offence or with counselling or procuring its commission.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par \~ \par {\*\bkmkstart s23_PC_Bharat_Duve_v_State}Section 23 {\*\bkmkend s23_PC_Bharat_Duve_v_State}of the Penal Code provides:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 When a person counsels another to commit an offence, and an offence is actually committed after such counsel by the person to whom it is given, }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 it is immaterial}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 whether the offence actually committed is the same as that counselled or a different}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 one or whether the offence is committed in the way counselled or in a different way,}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 provided in either case that the facts constituting the offence actually committed are}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 a probable consequence of carrying out the counsel}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 . \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 In either case the person who gave the counsel is deemed to have counselled the other person to commit the offence actually committed by him. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 If the facts constituting the offence actually committed are not a probable consequence of carrying out the counsel, the person who gave the counsel is not deemed to be responsible.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (my underlining) \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par This test of }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 probable consequence}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 is similar to the common law test of }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 ordinary and natural result.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Archbold (2000 Ed) at 18-19 says:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 An offence cannot, however, be said to have been procured unless there is a causal link between what the alleged procurer did and the commission of the offence. Accordingly, when A surreptiti ously laces the drink of B with additional alcohol and thereafter B, unaware of what has happened, com mits the offence of driving a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit (an absolute offence), A may be convicted of having procured B to commit the offence. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt (i) that A knew that B was going to drive, and (ii) that he knew that the ordinary and natural result of lacing B}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s drink would be to bring his alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkstart AG_Reference_1_Bharat_Duve_v_State}Attorney-General}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{ \b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s Reference (No. 1 of 1975)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkend AG_Reference_1_Bharat_Duve_v_State} (1975) 61 Cr. App. R. 118, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider this very point. The question for the Court was whether a procurer and the principal offender needed to have a shared intention in respect of the offence committed, before the procurer could be found guilty. The Court said they did not, the question being whether the offence committed was an ordinary and natural consequence of the act of procurement. If it is, then there is a causal link between the procur ing and the offence. \par \par It was said by Shaw L.J. in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Bradfoot_Bharat_Duve_v_State}R \endash v- Bradfoot}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkend R_v_Bradfoot_Bharat_Duve_v_State} (1976) 64 Cr. App. R. 7, that the word procure was not a legal term of art, but one that a jury should be able to understand and that }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 procure}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 meant to }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 procure by endeavour}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 . In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkstart R_v_Bullock_Bharat_Duve_v_State}R v Bullock}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkend R_v_Bullock_Bharat_Duve_v_State}(1955) 1 WLR 1, the Court of Criminal Appellant held that knowledge of the fact that a tool (in t hat case a car) was to be used for an unlawful purpose was sufficient to prove the procurement. It said however:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 It is no doubt true that if an accused person merely suspects that if he lends something it may be used for a general criminal purpose, that may not be enough to make him an accessory before the fact; If an accused person lends a man a revolver believing that it may be used to commit a crime of violence but with nothing specific in mind, it may not be enough ....}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par In }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkstart Thambiah_v_R_Bharat_Duve_v_State}Thambiah v R}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkend Thambiah_v_R_Bharat_Duve_v_State }(1966) AC 37, the Appellant was charged with abetting (which was held to include counselling and procuring) another man, for whom he opened a bank account under a false name, with dishonesty and fraudulently using forged cheques. He was convicted, and on appeal, the Privy Council held that the judge was entitled to conclude that the Appellant must have known that the account would be used for paying in forged cheques. At page 45, t}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 he Court said:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 The intention of the Appellant falls to be decided on a consideration of all the possible inferences which might reasonably be drawn from his acts. Clearly his persistent, fraudulent and successful efforts to open an account for the first accused under a false name and description might have been intended, as the learned judge found, to provide a vehicle for realising the proceeds of forged cheques. Such an intention would be consistent with and would explain all the actions of the Appellant.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par Finally Archbold states, on the basis of old English commentaries (2000 Ed 18.23) that the counsellor and procurer is liable for all acts which result from the u}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 nlawful act commanded. It says:}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 If A commands B to beat C, and he beats him so he dies, A is liable for the murder: 4B1. Com.37; 1 Hale 617.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par Thus in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkstart Saunders_v_Archer_Bharat_Duve_v_State}Saunders and Archer}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 {\*\bkmkend Saunders_v_Archer_Bharat_Duve_v_State}(1573) Plowden 473, the accused gave his wife a poisoned apple intending to kill her, but she gav e it to a child who ate it and died. He was held to be guilty of Murder. Dyer CJ at the Warwick Asizes holding:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 And therefore it is every man}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 s business to foresee what wrong or mischief may happen from that which he does with an evil intention, and it shall be no excuse for him to say that he intended to kill another, and not the person killed.}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 "}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par It does not therefore appear that the learned Magistrate erred in deciding, on the contents of the confession, that the robbery was foreseeable. Although I do n ot agree that the robbery was foreseeable because the assailants were unemployed, on the facts of the case, the Appellant counselled the commission of an assault, and it is clearly foreseeable that a robbery in the course of the assault might also be commi tted. He would have been liable, on the authorities I have referred to, if Richard Leong had been seriously injured, or if he had died, as a result of the offence he had counselled and procured. The robbery would not have taken place if the Appellant had not counselled the assault and he must be held liable for the offence of robbery. \par \par Therefore, there was sufficient evidence for the learned Magistrate to have decided that the completed offence was a probable consequence of the counselled offence. Although the way in which the Appellant was questioned, was unsatisfactory because often two questions were asked in one sentence rendering the answer ambiguous, the Appellant clearly agreed that he had planned the offence which was committed. Further he never told the police that he did not expect the Fijian boys to commit the robbery. On the evidence, t he learned Magistrate was entitled to draw the factual conclusion that she did. \par \par In the case of }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 (1978) 3 All ER 1140, the Appellant who was a member of an illegal organisation in Northern Ireland, and who was ordered to act as a guide for another car which held explosives argued that he did not know the target or the weapon to be used. It was held that he must have contemplated that the bombing of a public-house was an obvious possibility among the offences likely to be committed and must have contemplated the commission of the offence. \par \par Thus in this case, the learned Magistrate was entitled to find (having correctly directed herself to consider what were foreseeable consequences) that the Appellant must have contemplated that the person he procured to commit an assault, might also commit a robbery. Further the short time frame between the counselling, and the offence leads to the inescapable conclusion (to which he himself agreed under caution) that the offence committed was the one counselled. \par \par For these reasons the appeal against conviction fails, and is dismissed. \par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10113797 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Appeal fails}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10113797 .}{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 \par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14306437\charrsid10113797 Ashika Bali and Marie Chan.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1972231\charrsid10113797 \par }}