6.
the victim not died of asphyxia, the fracturing of the ribs and the injuries to both lungs had produced bleeding which would have resulted in death within an hour of the actual time of death.
The five appellants were charged with the murder of Shanghai Chai and with causing grievous bodily harm, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, to YEUNG Shing. In addition the 1st to 4th appellants were charged with the false imprisonment of
YEUNG Shing. All appellants were found guilty upon the murder
charge and, whilst found not guilty of inflicting grievous bodily
harm with intent, all were found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm upon YEUNG Shing. The first four appellants were found not guilty upon the false imprisonment charge. All appellants
now appeal against their convictions, Mr. Goodbody representing the first three appellants and Mr. Downey and Mr. Leung being
respectively for the fourth and fifth appellants.
A ground of appeal common to the first four appellants
was that the learned commissioner, whilst mentioning the topic of
corroboration, failed to explain the meaning of the term to the
jury and failed to indicate what evidence, if any, was capable of
amounting to corroboration.
At the conclusion of a summing-up which had contained no
reference to corroboration, Mr. Niamatullah, for the Crown, invited
the learned commissioner to consider directing the jury on the
position arising where the evidence of one accused implicates another,
saying that this might be material in regard to the evidence of the 5th appellant against the 4th. Upon that the learned commissioner
said:
"Well, I will say this; that, of course, when one accused has given evidence against another, you have to bear in mind that he may have a strong incentive to put the blame on one of his co-accused and, therefore, it is desirable to see whether the evidence which that accused has given againt the other accused is in some measure corroborated by independent testimony. In so far as any accused has done that in this case, you may well think that there is such independent testimony. That is a matter for you to consider. There is always a danger in convicting anybody on the evidence of somebody who you think is an accomplice of that person if that evidence is not independently