32
Page 2 of Jumming Up. To show how the learned trial judge regarded
the evidence. "Let me next remind you that the charge against the accused is murder of Michael Pine and it does not matter here and now what you may be satisfied he did to the other children etc." That passage clearly shows that the learned Chief Justice was warning the jury against any wrong inference that might be drawn as to the accused's conduct. That is a warning on the same lines as the warning which I read to your Lordships and it is a warning very proper in the circumstances.
Naturally His Lordship the Chief Justice did not direct the jury the ground on which to consider the facts admissible. It is not for the trial judge to explain to the jugy why he admits the evidence. It is sufficient that he considers it admissible and the question for Your Lordships is if the evidence of Mrs. Fairburn that she saw the appellant on the bridge is admissible, I do not see why she poul
say that she saw the accused throw the children in. “Ex&tækkkx two childern might have been Michael Pine
Unex
Mr. Limi- There is no evidence on that to the contrary in fact.
-
Mr. Fraseri- Mr. Fraser states how Hrs, Fairburn came to the conclusion that the children she saw rescued were the same as those
she saw thrown in. Mrs. Fairburn did not know others had been thrown in and it was quite open to the Jury to infer one of the two children she saw thrown in was Michael Wine,
Er. iimi- The question before the jury was - Was one of the children thrown in Michael Pine, and if the jury had given the verdict "Yes" then that would have been against the weight of evidence.
Mr. Jacke:- That point was not raised by the Chief Justice.
r. Fraser He referred to in in general terms only. for him to point out that she might have made a mistake.
At top of page 8 of the summing up.
It was proper
(Mr. Lim interrupts and says that from the evidgude of Mary Pine the last two children were girls, Ers. Fairburn has specifically
stated that one of these two children might be Michael Fine. We murkis say it could not be Michael Fine as Kary stated the last two children according to her evidence, were Jay Bromley and herself.)
Mr. Fraseri Am I wrong in making this submission because I would like to continue to make this submission.
Mr. Jocksi- No.
Mr. Fraseri- There was evidence on which the Jury might have come to the conclusion that either of these two children might have been Michael Ping, but necessarily it was put in very careful terms used by the learned trial judge at page 8. If you remember *KKEKEKNİK XXXXXİNKİ Ers. Fairburn said that she thoughe one was a boy and ɔne was a girl.
Łame 3 0. Mugal Reports paze 259. page 262. Concluding passage.
"It was argued that certain evidence was imporperly admitted etc.
Objection to this evidence could hage been taken at the trial. That is clear and ng objection was taken, I don't say objection could have been taken
Mrs. Fairburn went into the bax but it certainly could have been taken when the Urown case closed and no objection was then taken so thatevidence at the trial.
Paunders 14 Ur. Apeal seports page 9 - on the same point.page 10. King va. Cairns 20 Cr. App enl Reports p. 44,
If objection must be taken at the same time how much more must objection be taken to the evidence at the Court of trial ↑
Then the next point. With regard to the mentioning of Fary Pine's evidence in my opening address, præjudicing the defence.
Boscoe 18th edition page 121 and 297. Relating to inadmissible evidence.
The conviction will be quashed.
Rule of law on page 121.