Read the full judgment text of CACC 000018/1991 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 May 1992 before Fuad VP, Macdougall JA, Nazareth JA.
Criminal law – corroboration – accomplice evidence – jury direction – multi-accused trial – multi-count indictment – robbery – handling stolen goods – misdirection – the proper course where there is more than one accused or more than one count is for the judge to deal with evidence capable of amounting to corroboration separately in respect of each accused on each count – evidence that may corroborate the testimony of a suspect witness in respect of one count does not necessarily corroborate that testimony in respect of another count against the same accused or the same count or different counts against another accused – a global direction in respect of all accused on all counts is likely to confuse the jury and provides fertile ground for appeals – the trial judge gave a global direction listing all evidence said to be capable of corroborating the accomplice Fung's testimony against D2, 3, 4 and 5 on the robbery count and 'where applicable' against D1 on the handling count, without specifying which evidence related to which accused or which count – held that the global approach was a misdirection – the 1st and 2nd applicants, with three co-accused, were charged on one count of robbery (relating to the 2nd applicant and three co-accused) and one count of handling stolen goods (the 1st applicant alone) – Fung testified that the 2nd applicant and two co-accused carried out the robbery, and that the 1st applicant helped dispose of the stolen antiques through a flat rented in Fung's name – Mr. Ngan's testimony that the 2nd applicant had borrowed his van on the day of the robbery was held not capable of corroborating Fung's evidence in respect of any accused because there was no independent evidence that the van was used in the robbery – the finding of Fung's own fingerprints on the parking ticket and his palmprints on cartons in the flat could not corroborate his evidence against the applicants because it did not tend to implicate them – the jury's inconsistent verdicts, acquitting the 3rd, 4th and 5th accused despite the opening global direction, demonstrated the confusion caused – convictions of the 1st and 2nd applicants could not stand – appeals allowed – sentences of three and a half years and ten years' imprisonment set aside – retrial ordered for the 2nd applicant.
Legal issues: Proper approach to jury direction on corroboration in multi-accused, multi-count cases · Whether Mr. Ngan's testimony about hiring of the van was capable of corroborating the accomplice's evidence · Whether the finding of the accomplice's own fingerprints could corroborate his evidence against the accused
Outcome: Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; sentences set aside; retrial ordered for the 2nd applicant.