20
2
dates inclusive) in this Colony, through one Lau Hing, did counsel, procure and command Chui Yung Sham and Wong Nam Sheung to do and commit a certain felony by them committed on the 24th day of March 1932, at Wongneichong in this Colony, that is to say, to murder Fung Him alias George Fung.
Law.
Ordinance No. 14 of 1929 Sections 2 and 3 and Common
4. That your Petitioner was tried before His Honour Sir Joseph Horsford Kemp, K.C., C.B.E., the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong and a Special Jury on the charge set out in the said Indictment 10 on the 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th days of August 1932 and on the 24th day of August such Jury returned a verdict of guilty against your Petitioner upon the said charge.
5. That at the trial of your Petitioner upon the said charge, evidence was adduced by the Assistant Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown for the purpose of proving the following matters :-
were :-
6.
(A) That the said Fung Him alias George Fung was murdered. (B) That the murder was committed by two men-Wong Nam Sheung and Chui Yung Sham.
(c) That the two men Wong Nam Sheung and Chui Yung 20 Sham were procured by one Lau Hing to commit the murder.
(D) That the said Lau Hing was the chauffeur of your Petitioner and that from 23rd February 1932 he was also his agent for this purpose of procuring men to commit the murder.
(E) That from 23rd February 1932 onwards your Petitioner entertained feelings of revengeful hatred against the murdered
man.
(F) That on 20th and 21st March 1932 your Petitioner discussed with one Edward Thomas Spencer Zimmern and one Sydney Cecil Christie in compassing the death of the said George 30 Fung through other channels than those by which he was ultimately murdered.
That amongst the witnesses deposing to the matters aforesaid
(A) The said Chui Yung Sham and one Tong Kam Fui otherwise known as A To Ñui both of whom your Petitioner humbly submits were accomplices in the said murder, and
(B) Edward Thomas Spencer Zimmern and Sydney Cecil Christie.
7. That the evidence of the said Edward Thomas Spencer Zimmern was given by him with the knowledge that at the close thereof an application for a conditional pardon for the said Edward Thomas Spencer Zimmern would be made by Counsel for the Crown under Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance 1899. Such an application was in fact made and refused on the ground that the application should have been made before the evidence was heard.
8. That the evidence of the said Chui Yung Sham and Sydney Cecil Christie was given and heard after an application for a conditional pardon 10 under Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance 1899 had been made
on their behalf by Counsel for the Crown and granted by the Court.
20
30
9. The Provisions of Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance 1899 are as follows:-
"A Magistrate or the Court may, with the consent in writing "of the Attorney-General, order that a pardon be granted to any person accused or suspected of, or committed for trial for, any "indictable offence on condition of his giving full and true "evidence on any preliminary inquiry or any trial; and such "order shall have effect as a pardon by the Governor, but may "be withdrawn by the Magistrate or the Court on proof that such
person has withheld evidence or given false evidence."
.
10. The written consent of the Attorney-General to the pardon in respect of Chui Yung Sham was given on the 23rd day of July 1932 and in respect of both the said Edward Thomas Spencer Zimmern and Sydney Cecil Christie on the 4th day of August 1932.
11.
That the following matters set out under this paragraph hereof were raised by your Petitioner at the said trial on objection to the reception of the evidence of Zimmern and Christie (hereinafter referred to).
(A) That the evidence generally of the witnesses Zimmern and Christie, as from the time of objection thereto being taken was inadmissible.
(B) That the learned Chief Justice was wrong in admitting any evidence of the said witnesses which tended to establish that the accused had been guilty of a Criminal act or acts other than that covered by the indictment.
(c) That the evidence generally of the said witnesses was not relevant to any issue before the Court and was not required to rebut a defence which would be otherwise open to the accused.
10581
2/Page 21
22
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.