Ng Wan-fei v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 256/1976 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 March 1976 before Cons J.
1. The appellant was convicted of two counts of burglary. The only evidence against him were his own confessions which the police said he wrote out himself. When they were introduced into evidence at the trial he objected on the ground that he had been assaulted by the police. However, the learned magistrate did not believe him, but did believe the police witnesses. Now the appellant goes further and says that he did not even sign the confessions, let alone write them. Unfortunately I cannot jud
Legal issues: Admission of rebuttal evidence not directed to new matter
Outcome: Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACC000256/1976 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 1976 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Cons, J. Date of Judgment: 24 March 1976 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was convicted of two counts of burglary. The only evidence against him were his own confessions which the police said he wrote out himself. When they were introduced into evidence at the trial he objected on the ground that he had been assaulted by the police. However, the learned magistrate did not believe him, but did believe the police witnesses. Now the appellant goes further and says that he did not even sign the confessions, let alone write them. Unfortunately I cannot judge for myself because yet once again, despite the frequent observation of this Court, the exhibited notebooks are not before me. 2. However there is another matter which gives me concern in this case. After the appellant had given evidence in his own defence the Crown was granted leave to call evidence in rebuttal. That evidence was not directed to new matter which the Crown could not have earlier foreseen. Its object was to discredit the appellant by emphasising a contradiction between the evidence that he finally gave and matter that he had suggested in cross-examination of a Crown witness. The admission of evidence in rebuttal is a matter for the discretion of a magistrate. Yet it must be exercised in line with accepted principles. If not and if the further evidence influences the outcome of the trial this Court is bound to interfere. Unfortunately from the very careful and thoughtful statement of findings prepared by the learned magistrate it appears that he probably was influenced by this evidence. In the circumstances it would be unsafe to allow the convictions to stand. Representation: Appellant in person. C.W. Reid, Crown Counsel for Crown. |
Other judgments that cite this case