Shen Da Cheng v. R.
Read the full judgment text of CACC 348/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 May 1994 before Yang CJ, Macdougall V-P, Mortimer JA.
Criminal law – possession of dangerous drugs for trafficking – trial – jury directions – police credibility – improper remarks – appeal – leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed – conviction quashed – new trial ordered – R. v. Wong Kim Wah followed.
Legal issues: Improper jury directions on police credibility
Outcome: Appeal against conviction allowed; new trial ordered.
Cited by 3 cases
|
CACC000348/1993 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1993, No. 348 ___________
___________ Coram: Hon. Yang, CJ, Macdougall, V-P and Mortimer, JA Date of hearing: 24 May 1994 Date of judgment: 24 May 1994 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Hon. Yang, CJ 1. Shen Da Cheng was convicted after trial before Deputy Judge Yeung and a jury of two counts of possessing of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. A number of grounds are advanced in counsel's Re-amended Perfected Grounds of Appeals Against Conviction. The Crown does not contest Ground 1A of the Appeal which reads:
2. The summing up was delivered on 21 June 1993, where the learned trial judge said:
3. In another case, namely, R. v. Wong Kim Wah (Crim. App. No. 258 of 1993) which was decided by the Court of Appeal on the 14th of December 1993, subsequent to the summing up in the present case, similar words were used by the judge in his summing up to the jury. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the words uttered were wrong. The Crown fairly conceded that the conviction cannot be supported because of the suggestion in the passage complained of that police officers are less likely than other members of the public to tell lies. In the circumstances it will not be necessary for us to consider the other Grounds of Appeal. 4. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is allowed and the hearing of the application is treated as hearing of the appeal. The appeal against conviction is therefore allowed. It is a common ground that this is a suitable case for a new trial to be ordered. Accordingly we order a new trial.
Representation: Mr. John Mullick (D.L.A.) for Applicant Mr. S.R. Bailey (Senior Assistant Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent |
Other judgments that cite this case