12
of Inspector Leu. The witness had given as his reason for taking his prisoners to the Triad Society Bureau before taking them to
the police station that he had an office with a typewriter at the
Triad Society Bureau and that by completing the necessary forms
there he might be able to avoid a considerable delay at the
police station if no typewriter were available. Since the defence
case was that the reason for the first visit to the Triad Society
Bureau was by no means so innocent, counsel sought to question the
witness about 'occasions when he had taken prisoners to the Triad Society section in Kowloon, although he had no office in Kowloon
and the same reason could not then have applied. In our view
that was a legitimate line of cross-examination, but unfortunately counsel embarked upon it by referring not to the occasions themselves but to the trials in a magistrate's court arising out of them. Indeed the question which led to objection and the subsequent disallowance of further questions was directed to the
finding of the magistrate upon the evidence before him.
That was clearly objectionable and we think that the judge's ruling was coloured by his not unreasonable belief that Mr. Bernacchi's
purpose was to bring before the jury the fact that the magistrate had doubted the truth of the witnesses' evidence in the previous trial. We sympathise with him: had no reference been made to the proceedings in the magistrate's court counsel would probably not have been stopped. However, Mr. Bernacchi failed to disabuse the mind of the judge as to his intentions and in the event proper questions as well as improper questions were disallowed. Although the questions related to a matter which was of some importance to the defence case we do n ́t think that their disallowance was
so grave a matter that it strikes at the root of the verdicts. Had we done so we would have thought that the proper course was to order a new trial of these three Applicants unless some other, fatal, error were shown.
Should the learned judge have exercised his discretion not to admit the statements of the second applicant? It is said that parts of his first statement should have been excluded on the ground that they were made in answer to questions improperly put to him by the police. A similar point was taken at the trial in respect of a statement made by the fourth Applicant and the learned judge did exclude that statement. Counsel argues that there was no sufficient ground for distinguishing between the statements of