- 5 -
difficult to say what the jury made of this exchange. It would not have helped them but at the same time we do not see that it can have misled them. The judge had, in our view, sufficiently directed the jury as to the evidence which might lead the jury to believe that the Appellants were party to the attacks on the three men.
The only other matter we need mention is the second of the additional grounds of appeal in the Notices given by each Appellant:
"The learned Commissioner failed to adequately direct the jury that they must acquit the Appellant unless they rejected the evidence of the Appellant as to his intentions."
We do not think it was necessary for the judge to approach the matter in that way.
He adopted the better course of emphasising that it was for the prosecution to prove that their assessments of the Appellants' intentions were correct. We mention this ground of appeal expressly only because in the course of his argument Mr. Donnelly, on behalf of the second Appellant, appeared to be contending that the case of his client had not been sufficiently put before the jury. In particular he complained that the judge had not reminded the jury of the second Appellant's evidence (given in cross-examination) that on the day before the alleged offences he told SO Kuen he would not go with the others to sec Tai Pau if the purpose of going there was to chop Tai Pau. Even if it be open to the second Appellant upon his Notices of the grounds of his appeal to take this point we are satisfied that the defence was left fairly to the jury.
The applications of both Appellants are dismissed.
28th November 1973.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.