(Hong Kong) Evidence from a witness who was awaiting sentence in an unrelated matter was admissible since the jury had been warned of the dangers of such evidence. Lord Mustill said: ‘Once the courts have taken the large step, as they undoubtedly have, of recognising that circumstances may justify the calling of a witness who stands to gain by giving false evidence, it becomes impossible to say that what happened in the present case was necessarily contrary to the proper conduct of the murder trial. What was required was that the potential fallibility of [the witness] should be put squarely before the jury, and this is what was done.’
Evidence from a convict looking for a reduced sentence was admissible with an appropriate warning.
Judges:
Lord Mustill
Citations:
Times 21-Dec-1994, Independent 10-Jan-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 194, [1994] UKPC 47
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Gibson, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant renewed has application for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his daughter-in-law. The principle evidence against him was that of an accomplice. She had received letters to say that no further action would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth, Commonwealth
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78971