210
*
i.e. "we are not - certain"
Now, on that, gentlemen, you could, I think,
reasonably find that the accused is guilty of the crime
charged against him; that, of course, is on the assump -
tion you believe both branches of evidence. If you do
not believe the Zimmern and Christie evidencet that is
to say, if you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
it is true, even though you may suspect it may be true;
if you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
the Zimmern and Christie evidence is trus, then, in my view,
the verdict must be "not guilty", because, as I have
pointed out, the Chui evidence - though it takes you to
the accused's own door stops short of the accused him-
self..
If, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion,
on the Chui evidence, you are not satisfied beyond reason-
able doubt that Lau is the man who organised the murder,
again, I think, the case is at an end, and perhaps even
mor el clearly, because the charge is the procuring of
the murder by Lau.
So it comes to the three points I put at the
beginning.
Are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that Lau was the man who organised the crime as agent
for somebody else?. Are you satisfied beyond all
reasonable doubt, in spite of all the difficulties in
the evidence, that the accused made the definite state-
ments attributed to him by Zimmern and Christie? If
the answer is "Yes" to both questions, then you may, I
think, reasonably find the prisoner guilty. But equally
reasonably you might say, "even that does not satisfy us:
If that is we are not certain".
•
the answer to either of the first two questions, I
Page 210Page 211