TNAG-1555-FCO40-2119-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 82

4.19

29

One common experience of Police and prosecutors is that during a trial involving crime with a triad background, a number of persons sit in the public gallery of the court and stare at the witness. In many cases the only reasonable inference is that, in behaving in this fashion, these people are attempting to intimidate the witness. Experienced magistrates and District Court judges are well aware of this problem. Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221, empowers a court to remove such persons. Police prosecutors, lay prosecutors and Crown Counsel should be reminded of this section, so that in the event of such attempts at intimidation, the tribunal may be properly reminded of its powers.

THE USE OF ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE

Problem

4.20 The evidence of accomplices is frequently employed to prosecute serious crime. Obviously the greater the terror that an organization is able to wield, the less likely accomplices are to testify. The authorities often seek to balance this threat by inducement, usually the prospect of more lenient treatment. This approach is long established because it is often the only way that society is able to counter a serious threat to law and order. Until the advent of modern police methods, accomplices were the primary source of evidence. The offer was made of a pardon to "turn King's evidence", when the alternative often meant the death penalty.

4.21

Several problems face the prosecutor who wishes to employ accomplices as witnesses on behalf of the Crown. The practice is criticised by defence counsel, who argue that the use of such individuals is somehow improper. Judges are obliged to warn members of the jury of the dangers of convicting the accused on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. Until quite recently, there was a reluctance on the part of judges to offer a sufficient reduction in the usual sentence range [the "tariff"] to encourage defendants to plead guilty and to assist the Crown. Furthermore, there exists a need to ensure that prosecution witness statements made by an accomplice upon the offer of an immunity from prosecution, or some other inducement held out by the Crown, are admissible against him in the event of the witness not coming up to proof.