Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838905300204 |
| Published date | 01 May 1989 |
| Date | 01 May 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Privy Council |
PRIVY
COUNCIL
VIDEO
RECORDING! OF
RE-ENACfMENT
OF
CRIME
Li Shu-Ling v. R.
May a video recording of a demonstration by the accused of how
he acted on the occasion on which the crime was alleged to have
been committed be given in evidence as a confession? In Li Shu-
ling v. R.
[1988]
3 All
E.R.
138, the appellant strangled a woman
in her apartment both manually and with a rope. After initially
giving a false alibi, he later made a statement under caution in
which he admitted that he had killed the woman, but claimed that
he had done so accidentally in the course of a quarrel. Later, he
made a full confession, stating that, after quarrelling with the
woman over money, he had pursued her into her bedroom, where
he had strangled her first with his hands and then with a rope
which was laying nearby. Two days later, the police asked him
whether he would be willing to take part in a reconstruction of
the scene with a police woman playing the part of the victim. He
was reminded that he was still under caution and that he could
refuse-a
reminder repeated at the scene of the crime, before the
reconstruction was carried out. At his trial, he gave a quite
different account of what had happened at the time of the alleged
murder, but the trial judge admitted the video tape, together with
its running commentary by the accused explaining each of his
movements. He appealed from his conviction on the ground that
the video recording should not have been admitted, since it
inevitably confused the jury owing to the fact that neither he nor
the police woman had any acting skills, so that the reconstruction
could not have been an accurate reproduction of what happened.
Indeed, it was later stated by Lord Griffiths that the performance
was "stilted" ("as one might expect").
On appeal to the Privy Council, it was submitted that as a matter
!Note: See also "Video-Technology in the Criminal Courts of the United
Kingdom and Canada" on p. 215 ofthis issue.
207
To continue reading
Request your trial