7-
corroborated. And apart from being a matter
of law, that is really a matter of common sense and good judgment, and to that common sense and good judgment on your part, I now leave this case. On behalf of the first three appellants it is complained that although the learned commissioner mentioned the matter of corroboration, he "did not tell the jury what facts amounted to
corroboration". We would observe at once that it is never for the
judge to tell the jury what facts amount to corroboration: rather it is for him to tell them what matters are capable of amounting to corroboration thereafter leaving it to the jury to decide whether
those matters do in fact so amount thereto. But that is not the
nub of the matter in regard to the first three appellants. An
essential feature of the evidence given by the four appellants who
went into the witness-box, namely, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th
appellants, is that nowhere in their evidence, with the exception of references by the 5th appellant to the 4th to which we shall
come, was there any attempt by any of them to inculpate any of the other appellants; rather was their evidence exculpatory, and
counsel for the first three appellants did not point out to us any
single phrase of evidence on the part of any of the appellants which
could be said to inculpate any of his clients. It follows that in
the case of the first three appellants there was never any need for
a direction as to corroboration and if the learned commissioner "did
not tell the jury what facts amounted to corroboration", they have
nothing to complain of on that score.
There is a little more justification for the complaint,
on behalf of the 4th appellant, that "the learned commissioner failed
to explain to the jury the meaning of corroboration and failed to
indicate what, if any, evidence was capable of amounting to
corroboration". The 5th appellant had said in evidence that during the attack on Shanghai Chai, he saw the 4th appellant holding a chair leg but did not actually see her use it on Shanghai Chai. He also said that at the time of the beating of Shanghai Chai it was the 4th appellant who was in charge in the premises. Similar assertions of the 4th appellant being "in charge" had been made by YEUNG Shing and a girl, Pik Kwan, and that in the context of questions and answers which leave us in no doubt that what they were saying she was in charge of, was the beating of Shanghai Chai.