was that the Acoused must have procured the murder.
That has been their case throughout. It is clearly
wrong. It is a clear case of trying to prove one
crime by evidence of another.
Lindsell's opening, p.21., is a general invitation
to the jury to accept the whole of the Zimmern and
Christie evidence, to establish that Lau was the
agent of the Accused. It is not arguable that you
can take the whole of that evidence for that purpose.
Sheldon's sumning-up,
The passage about
the defenceless young man would only have increased
the prejudice created by the Zimmern and Christie
evidence, instead of correcting any such prejudice.
The same remark applies to the reference to the "name
of the whole community"
On that address any jury might naturally as B LINE
that if they believed that the Accused had ta en steps
to kill Fung through Zimmern and Christie, they would
infer that he employed Lau. The Zimmern and Chris ti e
evidence is so prejudicial that it clamours for legal
If admitted, it should have been
justification.
admitted with the clearest direction that it was
admissible for one purpose only.
The tanning-up: Our impression is that the
suming-up was sympathetic to the Prisoner. The learned
Judge could not have so summed up if he had felt that
the attack on the Zimmern and Chris tie evidence went
too far. In spite of that, the effect of the sunaing-up
was that if the jury believed the Zimmern and Christie
evidence it would follow that the Accused must be the
principal behind Laut The whole of the Zimmern and
Christie evidence was left to the jury, without
reservation, and on the issue that Lau was the agent
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.