30
12
13
case.
Now, there is one thing which has to be said in every Criminal You have heard it from Mr. Potter and you have heard it also from the Counsel who opened for the Crown, and that is that suspicion, even grave suspicion, is not enough. Before you can find a verdict of "guilty "you must be satisfied that the guilt is brought home to the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. That, of course, does not mean fantastic, fanciful doubt, but such doubt as would make you pause in some serious affair of your own life which you were not prepared to take a chance.
You cannot, of course, take a chance against the prisoner; you must be 10 certain.
Now, I think I ought to say, before coming to the case itself,— I feel it my duty to say something on the question of the con- ditional pardon, a procedure provided by the law and one which is therefore open to the Attorney-General to invoke, the scheme of the conditional pardon.
The procedure is as follows:-
:
"A" is arrested on suspicion of, let us say, robbery he makes a statement implicating himself and “B." The Crown, feeling they have not sufficient material for the conviction of 20 "A
and " B,"
," and not sufficient material for the conviction of "B" without the assistance of "A," will say to "A": "We will obtain for you a conditional pardon if you will repeat on oath in the trial what you have told us about B,' and what we believe to be true. The condition of the pardon is not the conviction of 'B' but simply that you give at the trial full and true evidence of the transaction. We do not offer you an absolute pardon because we do not trust you: you might go back on us and refuse to tell the truth in the witness-box."
Now, Mr. Potter put the matter to you-I have not the least 30 doubt in all sincerity and in accordance with his considered view of the matter-but I do think you are entitled to form your own opinion. I think it is misleading to say that the witness in such a case must throw the blame on someone else, that he has got to earn his pardon and is fighting in the witness-box for his pardon.
He has got to earn his pardon in one sense, but the way he has to earn it is by telling the truth, not by getting another man convicted. He may have, in one sense, to fight for his pardon, but the only fight is a fight to tell the truth. Zimmern and Christie and Chui Yung Sham are, I think, persons not without 40 some intelligence, though perhaps that intelligence may be mis- applied at times and, although you are entitled to a different view, I find it difficult to believe that they misunderstood the position with regard to the conditional pardon.
!
10
20
20
30
40
Having said that, I would also like to point out this, that the procedure has a danger there is little doubt, I think. I do not think that it ensures true evidence being given:
you cannot count on true evidence merely because of the conditional pardon: that is clear. Also, I think it has this danger: it may tend to make the witness who has a conditional pardon a little complacent, a little anxious to help the prosecution. That, I think, is an undoubted danger in the procedure.
But take Chui. Now, if Chui is a man who is prepared to tell any lie to earn his pardon, and if he thinks he must get the accused convicted in order to earn that pardon, it would be quite easy for him to invent some story (it might have broken down) implicating the accused. In fact, his evidence does not implicate the accused at all. Though, as you may have gathered, I am not an enthus- iastic admirer of this procedure, it is not, I think, quite so objectionable as it has been represented.
Now, to come to the case which, as I say, I shall deal with on very broad, general lines, I think there are three points on which you will or may have to make up your minds. First, do you believe the Chui evidence? Second, do you believe the Zimmern and Christie evidence Thirdly, if you believe both-and this, I think, is a distinct additional step-are they together enough to satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the charge laid against him?
Now first of all, the Chui evidence.
There is no doubt that Chui-either to make his evidence agree with A To Nui's or (as I should be rather inclined to think) to shield his friend A To Nui-did get into great difficulties over the events of 19th March and gave entirely inconsistent answers as to persons present on that evening. He eventually settled down, I think, on the story that the persons present were himself, Wong and A To Nui. He did, however, in the course of his evidence state that Lau was present on that evening, and, of course, the defence point to that as an attempt on his part to drag in Lau. As I say, his final answer here was that Lau was not present in the street at all that night. There was undoubtedly very great inconsistency and wavering, and probably untruthful- ness, in his answers in regard to that evening, but in spite of that, I think you may reasonably find-it is for you to say-that his evidence does reasonably establish the fact that the person who procured him and Wong to commit the murder was Lau.
Lau's association with the others is spoken to also by Cheung Ka Mau. Lau himself has not come forward here to deny his participation in the crime and I think you might reasonably
31