The Queen v. Lo Yim-kwong

CACC000356/1984

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

Headnote

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

Collaboration of police witnesses in the making of their notes.

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Yang, Barker and Kempster, JJ. A.

Date of hearing: 7th November, 1984.

Date of judgment: 7th November, 1984.

Date of handing down judgment: 16th November, 1984.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Yang, J.A.:

1. We have already given our judgment orally in court and dismissed this application for leave to appeal against conviction. However, in the light of one matter which touched upon an issue of some importance, we said we would reduce into writing that part of the judgment relevant to the issue. We do so now.

2. There was evidence adduced at the trial that police officers concerned with the arrest of the applicant had embarked upon "a substantial amount of collaboration amongst themselves in preparing for the giving of evidence at the trial". The judge found in his Reasons for Verdict that -

"The officers were remarkably frank about that collaboration which went further than witnesses should wisely go in that respect. In fairness to them, I must say that it was apparently organized, most unwisely, by a young Woman Detective Inspector. Having taken account of that matter, I formed the view, having seen and heard them, that they were truthful and reliable witnesses."

3. For the purpose of this application, we need not describe the collaboration except to say that there was no suggestion of any concoction of evidence or of any officer changing his story as a result of what he learned from his colleagues' statements. In support of his contention that the officers' reliability and credibility were called into question, counsel for the applicant cited the Queen v. Tam Kwok-siu and others (1984) Nos. 118 and 144, where Huggins, Ag. C. J., said (at p.3) -

"         The difficulty we see is that, if inexperienced police officers were prepared to strive for consistency in relation to 'distances and the like', there is a danger that they may have done rather more than that. It is true that the judge saw the witnesses and we have not seen them and that he expressly tells us that he considered the danger very carefully. Were there no other reason for anxiety we might have concluded that there was not such a substantial lurking doubt that we ought to interfere, but there was another matter."

4. Counsel for the applicant conceded that unlike that case, in the present case we do not have a number of police officers who were very young and inexperienced giving evidence for the first time. He did however argue that the judgment cited above indicated a departure in Hong Kong from the usual practice in England. The English practice was explained by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Bass (1953) 1 Q.B. 680 where Byrne J. said (at p.686) -

"This court has observed that police officers nearly always deny that they have collaborated in the making of notes and we cannot help wondering why they are the only class of society who do not collaborate in such a matter. It seems to us that nothing could be more natural or proper when two persons have been present at an interview with a third person than that they should afterwards make sure that they have a correct version of what was said. Collaboration would appear to be a better explanation of almost identical notes than the possession of superhuman memory."

5. We are of the view that Tam's Case (supra) was decided on the special facts of the case and is no authority for the proposition that the practice in Hong Kong is any different to that in England.

Representation:

Mr. Cheng Huan (D. L. A.) for Applicant.

Mr. A. A. Bruce, Crown Counsel for Respondent.