Land B
MARC
OE
as to proceedings before Committing Magistrates
and sections 364 to 373 inclusive on a trial by Jury by which the Court is authorised to put to prisoners any questions "which it may think proper" given prisoner to answer or not to be.
substituted for the English Law
Or
3rdly. Ought the reform as to Evidence in Hong Kong to go further in this respect than it has in India and ought the Enactment of Ordinance No 3 of 1872 to be Law in Hong Kong?
Mr Hall Hayllar,
upon his Report of 1872 quotes General Vieira and the Criminal Law of England by Mr Irby James Stephen. The Argument goes to prove too much - to prove at page 196 the utter hopelessness of any fair Trial of ignorant prisoners. It appears in the Star, that in Chamber days prisoners were roughly questioned but that from 1688, the present practice of not questioning prisoners has grown up with the growth of national liberty.
Other Authors attribute this result to the national, probably jealousy of undue pressure on prisoners by Judges, which Mr Stephen refers to in his Essay before the Juridical Society, Vol. 4, p. 478. Mr. Stephen says at p. 478 "Jury Trial" that he proposes to modify and suggests the exclusion of several matters from the interrogatories to be put to the accused, some of which are excluded in Ordinance No 3 of 1872 and at page 201 of the Work to which Mr Hayllar refers.
Mr Stephen suggests that the Counsel, the Crown ought to interrogate the prisoner. "I would allow him to ask leading questions" and he objects to the prisoner being interrogated by the Judge. He objects to making "it the duty of the Judge to examine the prisoner" in that "it is of the first importance that the prisoner should be carefully protected against anything like intimidation by the Judge".
Page 365
Again
W
Land B
MARC
OE
as to proceedings before Committing tapetats
and suchons 364 to 373 inclusive on a
trial by Jury by which the Court is authoused to put to pusoners any quechon's " which it
wish an
to
think protes may think, express ophow given pusoner to answer
on not to be.
substituted for the English Law
Or
3rdly. Ought the reform as
Wevidence su
tw
Hong Kong to go funcher.
this respect than it
in
India and ought the Enactment &
the Ordinan
ce
No 3
a Hong
Rong
Mr Hall Hayllar.
"
upon
Ordman
an ce
largely from the
of
of 1872 to be Law
No 3
Atv
his Report of 1872 quotes General Vieir
of the
Criminal Law of England by Me Irby James. Stiphen The Argument goes to prove too much _ to prove at page 196 the utter hopelessness of any fair Trial of ignorant prisoners It appears
in the Star. (hamber days prisoners were roughly questioned but that frour 1688, the present practice of not questioning prisoners has grocor up with the growth of national lebust.
This
This result other Authors attribute to ther
natinal protovaly jealousy of undire pressure on prisoners by Judges, which Mr Stephen
Siv his
489
Core cetvo
To
Trab by
Essay before the juridical jority Volt p 478 Mr. Stephen says
7478 Jury
Ao a
ome
proposes tomodify and
be there
consegrance
enggests the
exclusion of several matter from the
interrogatones tobe put
None
to the
accused.
of which are excluded in Ordenaner
page
201 of the
The
live
No 3 of 1872 and at Work to which Mr Hayllar refers
for
Stephen suggests that the Counsel, the brown ought to interrogate the prisons,
I would allow hund to ask leadin
quechous" and he objects to the prisoner being intensgated by the Judge he
The objechour to makin
" the
duty of the Judge to examine " hand ["the prisoner ] in that it is of the " first importance that the prisoner "should be confully protected against "any thing
no one
like intimidation
could
"the Judge "
best hum
protect
X
agamat Again
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.