W. Lan
"thought differ but not in an incalculable degree"; on the contrary, I am of opinion that, in spite of all these differences, human nature is pretty much the same all the world over. The difficulty in investigating crime is practically lessened by the fact that in the evidence the facts, brought out beyond dispute, tend very much to simplify the real question for decision, and that in the majority of cases the conclusion to be arrived at is finally certain.
It appears to me that Hong Kong presents no such special ground for deviating from the law of England as has been suggested. Even if there be such grounds, comparison between the Code in India & the Ordinance No. 3 of 1872 shows such difference of language as will render the practice in England no guide for the practice in Hong Kong.
For Example, The Code, Section 373 says "The Court may put any question to the accused person which it thinks proper. It shall be in the option of the accused person to answer such question." Ordinance No. 3 of 1872 enacts "It shall be lawful for any Judge or Magistrate &c. to orally interrogate such prisoner." I think the Code properly leaves it in the discretion of the Court to "examine", whilst under the Ordinance it is obligatory on the Judge or Magistrates not only to put questions but to interrogate, to which a somewhat Star Chamber questioning for the elucidation of the truth must be attached. The provisions to my mind are essentially different.
Section 5 of the Ordinance provides that the answers shall be treated as evidence against the prisoner, but not against whom? Himself only, or the prisoner joined with him in the same indictments? No such provision is to be found in the Indian Code, and it is entirely contrary to the English Rule, as stated by Russell on page 464: "The prisoner's statement is evidence against him but not for him" and therefore it cannot be put in evidence for the prisoner.
Page 18