IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court
Date of hearing : 26 January 1996
Date of handing down judgment : 2 February 1996
J U D G M E N T
1. This was an appeal against a conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The simple point in the appeal was that as identify wasin issue in this case, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to have reminded himself in accordance with the Turnbull guidelinesof the inherent dangers associated with identification evidence. Mr Poll who appeared on the appeal but not in the court below remindedme of the authority of R. v. Beckford (1993) 97 Cr App R 409. That case was followed, though not specifically referred to, in a recent Hong Kong appeal R. v. Lau Chow Tong Cr App No.551 of 1994. Both these cases make it clear that in circumstances such as this, surprising as it may seem, it is necessaryfor courts to warn themselves of the inherent danger of relying on identification evidence. That the Magistrate did not do in thiscase and therefore I must allow the appeal.
Miss Agnes Chan, S.C.C., for Crown
Mr Michael Pool (D.L.A.) for Appellant