Judical Commitee of the Privy Council
| Date | 01 July 1979 |
| Published date | 01 July 1979 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837904300305 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judical Commitee
of
the Privy Council
Comments
on
Cases
ADMISSION
OF
EVIDENCE BASED ON A CONFESSION
Wong Kam-ming V. The Queen
A group
of
men went to a massage parlour in Hong Kong and
attacked the manager in retaliation for an earlier attack on one
of
their
number. The manager was stabbed to death. At the outset
of
the trial
of
his attackers for murder, the only evidence against the appellant in
Wung Kam-ming v. The Queen
(l97CJ,
2W.L.R. 81) was a statement
by him to the police that he had been there, that he had had a knife
in his hand and that he had
"chopped"
someone. His counsel objected
to the admission
of
this statement, on the ground that it was not vol-
untary and the question
of
its admissibility was dealt with in the
absence
of
the
jury
on the voir dire. The accused stated that he was
not cautioned; that he was constantly questioned by the police; that
he was threatened that his "sworn
brother"
would be arrested if he did
not confess; that he was assaulted; and that he was forced to copy
out
and sign a statement drafted by the police. The judge ruled that the
statement was inadmissible. At the trial
of
the general issue, however,
the prosecution proceeded to cross-examine the accused on the basis
of
the discrepancies between what he said at the voir dire and what he
told the jury. As the Crown had, at the voir dire, cross-examined him
at length about the contents
of
his statement and as to its
truth
and had
obtained his admission that he had been present at the scene
of
the
attack, the later cross-examination before the
jury
was vital. In addition,
the prosecution called the shorthand writers who had recorded the voir
dire to testify that they had heard the accused admit to being present and
involved. On appeal, objection was taken to the trial judge's ruling that
this evidence was admissible and to his allowing the accused to be cross-
examined on the basis
of
the voir dire. The Court of Appeal dismissed
the appeal, but the Judicial Committee
of
the Privy Council gave
special leave to appeal from the decision.
146
To continue reading
Request your trial