W. Lan
"thought differ but not in an incalculable degree"; on the contrary, I am of opinion that, in spite of all these differences, human nature is pretty much the same all the world over. The difficulty in investigating crime is practically lessened by the fact that in the evidence the facts, brought out beyond dispute, tend very much to simplify the real question for decision, and that in the majority of cases the conclusion to be arrived at is finally certain.
It appears to me that Hong Kong presents no such special ground for deviating from the law of England as has been suggested. Even if there be such grounds, comparison between the Code in India & the Ordinance No. 3 of 1872 shows such difference of language as will render the practice in England no guide for the practice in Hong Kong.
For Example, The Code, Section 373 says "The Court may put any question to the accused person which it thinks proper. It shall be in the option of the accused person to answer such question." Ordinance No. 3 of 1872 enacts "It shall be lawful for any Judge or Magistrate &c. to orally interrogate such prisoner." I think the Code properly leaves it in the discretion of the Court to "examine", whilst under the Ordinance it is obligatory on the Judge or Magistrates not only to put questions but to interrogate, to which a somewhat Star Chamber questioning for the elucidation of the truth must be attached. The provisions to my mind are essentially different.
Section 5 of the Ordinance provides that the answers shall be treated as evidence against the prisoner, but not against whom? Himself only, or the prisoner joined with him in the same indictments? No such provision is to be found in the Indian Code, and it is entirely contrary to the English Rule, as stated by Russell on page 464: "The prisoner's statement is evidence against him but not for him" and therefore it cannot be put in evidence for the prisoner.
Page 18
W.
Lan
"thought" deffer but not in an incalculable
degree "; on
that in
the
contary
Sam of opinion
spite of all these differences,
human nature
pretty much the
same all the world over
The difficulty in
in uwvestigating
practically lessened by the
afting
crime.
fact that in
the evidence the
farts, brought out beyond dispute,
Tend
very
much to simplifyh
the
real queshow for decision and that
the great vest
in the
majority of exces
the conclusion tobe arrived at is i inally cirtam
It appears to me that Hong Mong presents no such special ground for deviating from the law of endeme
England &
as has been suggested. Even
A
of there be such grounds comparison betinaen the boke in
India & the Ordiname No 3.
39 1872
зд
shews sinh difference of language
as will render the practice
the practice in Endic
no guide for the practies in Hougtong
For Example The bode
12.
sayPhin
Section
Lee Dwarris on the State
Sechon 373 The Count + x
" may put any
m
may
" question to the accused person which it "Think proper
It shall be in the option q
"the accused person to answer
answer such
such question
Ordinance No 3
7
1872 enarts » It shall
ed arrive
" be lawful for any Judge to thor any "Magistrate &c to orally " such prisoner 4: " The Code
it entirely
Ro
Zinterrogate
194
I think properly leaves,
Ar
in the discretion of the Court to "examine" whilst under the Ordinance it is Irather think (but this is clement of grave
doubt / obligatory on the Judge or magistrates not only to put question but to interrogate to which
"examme
سان
a
funcher meaning must be attached some what Star chamber questioning for the elucidation of the bruch The provisions to my mind are being
different
es
"
essentially
Section 5 of the Ordinance provides
that the ansivers
treated " as evidence
puemer
Evrde. Shatt be
against whom ? homself only
rrr
for
the
prisoner joined with him so the same indishments ? No such provision is lobe found
the Indian Code and it is entirely contrary to the English Rule this stated by Russell Us: 3 p 464 ? The prisoners " statement is endeme against him but not " for him " and therefore it cannot be put
18.
in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.