TSANG HON-SUM v. THE QUEEN

CACC000870/1977

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
on appeal from the High Court
	1977 No. 870
	(Criminal)

-----------------

 

BETWEEN
	TSANG HON-SUM	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 5th May, 1978.

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

Pickering, J.A.:

1. This was an application for leave to appeal against conviction on a charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The only ground of appeal upon which we invited the Crown to address us related to the action of the learned judge in admitting into evidence, together with the cautioned statement made by the appellant, the recital of the caution administered to him before the statement was made. It is of course usual that when a cautioned statement is admitted into evidence the caution administered is part and parcel of the document placed before the court. What was unusual in the present case was that the material which preceded the actual cautioned statement contained not only a statement of the alleged crime being investigated followed by the caution but also a resume of the circumstances of the arrest of the appellant including a verbal admission which he was said to have made at that time.

2. Whilst in the present instance we consider that no harm existed sufficient to warrant us either allowing the appeal or taking that course and then ordering a new trial, we think it desirable to say that in general a judge should be slow, having admitted a disputed statement in evidence, to allow that statement to be placed before the jury together with a recital of the caution administered before the taking of the statement which recital contains reference to previous inculpatory statements alleged to have been made by the accused. No doubt if prosecuting counsel knows his job and has been properly instructed, any such alleged prior statement will be drawn out in examination-in-chief of the relevant Crown witness or witnesses and will also be put to the accused in cross-examination on the general issue should the accused give evidence: but to allow it to be annexed to a statement placed before the jury for an assessment of the weight of that statement could influence the jury in its performance of the task of assessment. We would warn against the practice adopted in the present case which could in many circumstances operate unfairly on an accused person.

  

Representation:

M.H. Jackson-Lipkin, Q.C. & J.D. Donnelly (Hampton, Winter & Glynn) for appellant.

C.W. Reid for Crown/respondent.