Yau Chung Kee v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite..
1. As I indicated earlier, the judgment which has just been read is the judgment of the Court. I have had the gravest doubts whether it is right to regard the exculpatory parts of an extra-judicial statement as evidence for any purpose other than to negative, or reduce the weight of, the admissions which it contains. I have been rather less impressed than the other members of the Court by the suggested artificiality and unfairness of what Wigmore, in the passage cited, says is “logically unquest
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 1973 ________________________
________________________ Coram: Full Court (Huggins, McMullin & Pickering, JJ.) ________________________ JUDGMENT ________________________ Huggins, J.: 1. As I indicated earlier, the judgment which has just been read is the judgment of the Court. I have had the gravest doubts whether it is right to regard the exculpatory parts of an extra-judicial statement as evidence for any purpose other than to negative, or reduce the weight of, the admissions which it contains. I have been rather less impressed than the other members of the Court by the suggested artificiality and unfairness of what Wigmore, in the passage cited, says is “logically unquestionable”. However, the courts have spoken with such an uncertain sound on the matter that I do not wish to press my doubts to the point of dissent. 11th May 1973. |