单词 | Identification direction |
释义 | 識別指示 The direction given by a judge to the jury whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence alleges to be mistaken. Firstly, the judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification or identifications. In addition, he should instruct them as to the reasons for the need for such a warning and should make some references to the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and that a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken. Secondly, the judge should also direct the jury to examine closely the circumstance in which the identification by each witness came to be made. Finally, the judge should remind them of any specific weaknesses which had appeared in the identification evidence: R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 (CA). Hong Kong has adopted this approach: Manit Phromanonta & Ors v R [1977] HKLR 226 (CA); R v Lam Hon Por [1996] 1 HKCLR 42 (CA). The Turnbull direction serves as guidelines only and they are not to be interpreted in an inflexible manner or treated as if they are the words of a statute. The essence is that there is a special need for caution when the issue turns on evidence of visual identification: R v Leung Chi Fai & Anor [1987] 3 HKC 224 (CA). Failure to give it is a material misdirection: R v Tran Duc Cuong & Anor [1995] 1 HKCLR 31 (CA). Turnbull direction must be clearly impressed with the authority of the judge and must not be blunted or watered down by comment or selectivity: R v Dinh Van Duong & Anor [1996] 1 HKCLR 63 (CA). When assessing the quality of the evidence under the Turnbull doctrine, the jury is protected from acting upon the type of evidence which, even if believed, experience has shown to be a possible source of injustice R v Wong Chi Man [1995] HKLY 309 (CA). In the absence of jury, a District Judge or a Magistrate is not necessarily called upon to be seen to give himself an explicit warning in the term of Turnbull. He should, however, show that he has been mindful of the considerations to the Turnbull make reference: R v Cheung Tak Chi [1990] HKLY 313 (CA); R v Pham Van Hai & Anor [1991] HKLY 216 (CA). Also known as ‘Turnbull direction’. See also Direction to jury; Identification evidence; Warning. 每當針對被控人的案件是完全地或重大地取決於一項或以上識別被控人的正確性,而抗辯指稱是錯誤的,則法官會向陪審團給予的指示。首先,法官應預告陪審團,在依賴有關識別的正確性以將被控人定罪前,需要特別謹慎。此外,法官應指示陪審團他需要作出該預告之理由,法官並應就誤認指控人的證人也可具說服力,而若干此等數目的證人亦可能全部錯誤的可能性,作出若干提述。其次,法官亦應指示陪審團須密切審查每一證人識別被控人的情況。最後,法官應提醒陪審團有關識別證據出現的任何具體不足之處:R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224(英國上訴法院)。香港現已採用識別指示:Manit Phromanonta & Ors v R [1977] HKLR 226;R v Lam Hon Por [1996] 1 HKCLR 42(上訴法院)。Turnbull指示僅作指引之用,而不應以不可改變的方式詮釋,或視此等指示猶如法規字眼一樣。指示的要素是,當爭論點繫於視覺識別上的證據時,有謹慎的特別需要:R v Leung Chi Fai & Anor [1987] 3 HKC 224(上訴法院)。沒有給予此等指示是重大的錯誤指示:R v Tran Duc Cuong & Anor [1995] 1 HKCLR 31(上訴法院)。Turnbull法官必須在其權限下,清晰地作出Turnbull指示,但不得藉評論使之含糊其詞或打拆扣:R v Dinh Van Duong & Anor [1996] 1 HKCLR 63(上訴法院)。在根據Turnbull原則評估證據的質素時,陪審團不可依據經驗已證明可能導致不公平情況的證據作出裁決,該某種證據就算被相信了,:R v Wong Chi Man [1995] HKLY 309(上訴法院)。在沒有陪審團的審訊中,區域法院或裁判官無需為被見到,而以Turnbull指示給予自己明示的預告。但他應顯示出他已顧及Turnbull 的指示:R v Cheung Tak Chi [1990] HKLY 313(上訴法院);R v Pham Van Hai & Anor [1991] HKLY 216(上訴法院)。另稱「Turnbull指示」。另見 Direction to jury; Identification evidence; Warning。 |
随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条,基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法,是法律学习的有利工具。