-16-
If the evidence is admissible, as I submit, there is
overwhelming evidence that the Prisoner procured the
murder of Fung.
In R. v. Ball (1911) A. C. 47, Lord Atkinson says
that enmity is evidence of the fact that he killed him”.
It has never been argued otherwise till this case.
Potter said he could not believe that Lord Atkinson meant
that, Potter said that he would be surprised if that
passage would be found in any text book. I found it in
the first text book at which I looked. Lord Atkinson
proposition
repeats the gxxxxgɛ in R. v. Thompson (1915) A.C. 221,
at pp.226/7. In that onse Lord Dunedin said (p.226)
that "the law of evidence in criminal cases
set of practical rules
·
without causing undue
"prejudice. . . . .'
R. ▼. Bucklem (1873) 13 Cox 293.
R. v. Hagen (1873) 12 Cox 357.
R. v. Harris (1864) 4 7. & r. at 343.
R. v. Lovegrove (1920) 3 K.B. 643.
Potter's propositions amount to this:- "A" says to "C",
I have hired "D" to murder ?", but if he does not, will
you do it for $10,000.
does murder ***. The question
is whether "A" rooured "D". *A'** statement to C* 1#
inadmissible.“
There is no authority for that.
Assume, by way of illustration, that Prisoner was
joking when he asked Christie to kill Fung, and that he
really wanted to fire a blank round and frighten Fung,
but that a live round was fired by mistake and Fung was
killed. In that case Prisoner would have a very good
defence: he had no guilty mind. If Potter is right,
then if the true defence of mistake and accident is raised,
the evidence of a previous attempt to incite Zimmern and
Christie becomes admissible to rebut that defence.
The
20
Page 20Page 21