Chow Chun v. The Queen

CACC000160/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 160 OF 1975

-----------------

Coram: Briggs, C.J. , Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 12th May, 1975.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant, together with another man, was found guilty of being in possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He appealed against his conviction.

2. It is unnecessary to go into the facts. The record shows that the appellant is a Chiu Chow. He gave his evidence in Punti. During the examination-in-chief it is recorded that the court asked the appellant this question:

The appellant answered:

This occurred after counsel for the prosecution had had difficulty in making clear to the appellant what was a perfectly simple matter, namely, whether the reason that some dangerous drugs were found on certain premises was the reason that the appellant decided not to use those premises any more.

3. In his judgment, the learned judge states that the appellant was hesitant and sometimes reluctant to answer questions in cross-examination. Furthermore, he said that some of his answers were little short of fatuous and he gave examples. The learned judge put all this down to the fact that the appellant was lying in his evidence. However, we think that such conduct on the part of the appellant may possibly have resulted from an inability clearly to understand the language in which he was being addressed. It is true that the appellant was represented in the court below but we think it is a fundamental point that a witness giving evidence in court must be allowed to speak in his native language if he chooses. The judge may have been satisfied that the appellant chose to speak in Punti but that does not appear from the record although the language issue had clearly been raised. It would have been an easy matter to have secured the services of a Chiu Chow interpreter and it is to be regretted that counsel who appeared for the appellant did not urge the court to take this course.

4. There were other matters argued before us in this appeal into which we do not propose to go at this stage. In the event we allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be retried in the District Court.

Representation:

Jackson-Lipkin, Q.C. and Eddis (H.M. So & Co.) for appellant.

Carolan for respondent/crown.