TNAG-0486-FCO40-551-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 42

6

quite apart from all questions of colour. Mr. Edgley was not asked to put the matter further but no doubt the implication of this evidence would be that if one were to consider not merely the question of the colour combination but also the fact that the set of fibres examined which had come from the deceased's clothing were, by the other tests identical in quality with the set of fibres examined from the sweater, exh. P.25 then the possibility that two such sets of fibres occurring by chance on two quite separate sources was very considerably more remote than the possibility indicated by

the figure of one in one hundred thousand.

The learned Chief Justice put it clearly to the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless they were satisfied that

this transfer of fibres between the two garments, the T-shirt and the sweater, had occurred by contact between those garments at the time the girl met her death and further that the appellant was wearing that

sweater at that time. He carefully warned the jury that if they thought

it was a reasonable possibility that the fibres had become transferred

in this way by some previous chance encounter when either the appellant

or somebody else was wearing that sweater that would be an end to the

prosecution case. He summarised this part of his direction in the

following terms:

"It is only if you are satisfied that the woollen

fibres found on the girl's clothing are identical with the fibres found on this sweater; secondly, that they were transferred from this sweater to her clothing and, thirdly, that they were so transferred at the time she met her death; it is only in those circumstances that the case is made out against the accused; and it is only then that you need to go on to consider what is the other evidence against the accused in this case."

He then went on to deal with what were in effect the other links in

the circumstantial chain. Principal amongst these was the testimony

of Mrs. Rafferty which if believed must necessarily destroy that part of the appellant's alibi which related to his being at the Fox Cinema (a very considerable distance from where Mrs. Rafferty said she saw him)

at about 5.30 p.m. on the 17th of March. There was also the evidence

of a Mrs. Lai a neighbour who used to take care of the appellant's daughter while he and his wife were out at their respective places

of work. She was not able to pinpoint her om movements or those of the appellant on the exact day in question but she told the court that