to a procession of this type of witness through the witness-boxes. The Crown his not infrequently considered it necessary to rely upon ericnce from teinted sources in order to secure convictions of those considered to be still further tainted and every judge in the Colony is acutoly awrre of this and of the dangers inherent in such evidence. It is alleged that the learned trial judge, having observed that the anesty offered to these two accomplices had no doubt been so offered as a matter of public policy, failed to consider whether those amosties did in fact have the effect upon the witnesses to which I have referred. As I have observed that danger is in the mind of every judge in Hong Kong and it is wholly unnecessary for a judge of the experience of the learned trial judge to sp 11 out, in minute detail in his judgment, the underlying possibilities. In any event the criticien levelled against the learned juze is unjustified for, although it is true that at one point he referred to public policy without making dir et reference to the possibility that the amnesty could be calcul tod to lead to falo.vidence, in another part of the judgment when sp.citing of Lau he said:
Thora
::
It has been submitted on any grounds that his evidence should not be accepted nor ovon nénitted bonuse
he is under great pressure because of the terms of the amnesty to give favourable evidence on behalf of the Crown
**
a dir:et reference to the pressures inherent in
the amnesty, prostumes which were clearly in the learned judge's mind. The learned jud e vent on to remind himself that Lau was an accomplice and to warn himself of the Conger of accepting his evidence without corroboration.
The judge ont on to refer to Lau as having answered some of the alle tions ando against him in cross-examination "quite amply and with gros candor" whilst he had rightly denied other allegations made by the dulmo. which had been in no way supported. Having observed the demeanour of the witness, in particular when under cross-or inncion, the learned judge was of the opinion that his vid noe ring the tuo appellants was true and he accopted that evidence. Sono siniler observations in regard to the evidence
of Cheng, which idence was qually canning in regard to the first