30-
42
2.30 p.me
-
Friday,12.10.34.
MBR Lin's imply,
May it please your lordships. will begin with Mi sdirection.
In reply to my friend I
First of all as to the two bruises as «found on page 14 of the Summing up, which reads as follows: "There is one piece of direct evidence which from the point of view of circumstantial evidence is of considerable importance etc.* I submit this is a misdirection beaause of what has been said of what Mary will say in the Crown's opening.
St. #rageri May I interrupt. I should perhaps have interrupted my friend before. My friend has in each of the alleged cases of misdirection coupled that misdirection, if it be a misdirection, with the phrases of which he is relying ktk in the oppning. I should object and I do very strong object to his coupling that with my opening statement alone. It clearly stated yesterday it is only permissible to view any statement made taxtim with the whole conduct of the case and not with one statement of it. If you are reviewing a particular passage you must take the whole case.
y I read on. From the same paragraph. .. Whatever tim objection may be taken the trial judge had the impression that this is what has been stated at the opening and was continued by the warning to the jury in his summing up. It was said "that this piece of evidence is of considerable importance from the point of view of circumstantial evidence? I should like to know in what way it is of considerable importance at all - except that it is indicative of the gram of the appellant on Cary as she tried to run away.
(Mr. Fraser hera objects to the phrase "as Mary runs away alleging such a phrase was not used whereupon it was pointed out to Mr. Fraser it was in the Judge'a summing up. Hr. Fraser apologises explaining that he was looking at another paragraph).
Lure wami (Mr. Lim states that even if they had not been xxx said to the jury. The Jury was told it was a piece of considerable importanc etc. - How was it important except as indicŝtive of the grasp on Mary Pine's neck, by appellant. Jury should not have been reminded of this as it might have had the contrary effect to that of di sp el linį this evidence from their mind. )
The next point on misdirection is found on p.13 of the Summing up. "It may not be more than that" in reference to Mary's identificati at the police station. (Mr. Lim states that it can be no more than that". Discusses exidence of Lo Cheung on p.17 of Judge's notes. They were close together in the nullah, the man a little in front. (Read out car cleaner's evidence). Several passages quoted in order to show that Mary's identification of the appellant may have been that she saw him in the mullah when they were washed down and not on the bridge only as stated by Crown.
The next point is *The alternative is not to accept rio Davis' evidence. on page 15 of the summing up. I submit that the sentence should be read with the sentence preceding it. and the alternative involves equally or perhaps etc. * It was suggested that part of Erio Javis' evidence referred to in that statement must be that on that day the children did not go into the nullah. There was nothing of that in the summing up.
MY
BOT 37a8or: 1 referred to the whole of Eric Davis' evidence. I object to my remarks being taken in this way.
Ar. Limt- That statement in reference to Bric Davis' evidence is accepted by the Crown refers to the whole of Brio Davis' evidence?
Zraseri of course.
* Lini- Then I accept that.
Mr. Lim states that the effect of that statement was to make