| 单词 | Refreshing memory |
| 释义 | 恢復記憶 The rule that a witness is permitted to refresh his memory in the course of his evidence by reference to certain documents. It is common to civil and criminal cases, although it is of particular importance in criminal proceedings, most significantly with regard to the evidence of police officers: R v Britton [1987] 2 All ER 412, 85 Cr App Rep 14 (CA). The rule permits the witness to refer to a document made either at the time of the events described in it or so shortly afterwards that the facts were fresh in the mind of the witness: R v Lai Chi Ping [1982] 1 HKC 592 (CA). It need not have been made by the witness personally, provided it was checked by him while the facts were fresh in his memory: R v Mills, R v Rose [1962] 3 All ER 298, 46 Cr App Rep 336 (CCA). Where a witness has dictated the note to a police officer, he need not verify the original by inspecting it; it is enough if the officer reads back to the witness what he has written: R v Mills, R v Rose, supra. There is nothing objectionable in the practice whereby police officers collaborate together to produce a joint note: R v Mak Shek Kin [1988] 1 HKC 633; R v Kwok Shing Wing [1988] 1 HKC 602. Where a police officer makes jottings during the course of an interview and writes up a fuller note later when the facts are still fresh in his mind, the note may be used to refresh memory: R v Cheng (1976) 63 Cr App Rep 20 (CA). Documents may be used to refresh memory even if they would not be admissible if tendered in evidence: Maugham v Hubbard (1828) 8 B & C 14. There is an obligation on a magistrate, whenever a witness refreshes his memory from an earlier statement, to call for that statement, examine it against the evidence which had been given and either question the witness or suggest that the parties do so: R v Leung Siu Tong [1987] 1 HKC 423. 准許證人在作供時參考若干文件以恢復其記憶的規則。儘管恢復記憶在刑事法律程序特別重要，特別是關於警務人員的證據，恢復記憶在民事及刑事案件均屬普遍：R v Britton [1987] 2 All ER 412, 85 Cr App Rep 14（英國上訴法院）。法院准許證人參看在敘述事件時作出的文件或在不久之後證人對有關事實的記憶仍然鮮明時作出的文件：R v Lai Chi Ping [1982] 1 592（上訴法院）。如證人對事實仍然有鮮明的記憶時，已檢查過有關的文件，則不須由證人本身作出：R v Mills,R v Rose [1962] 3 All ER 298， 46 Cr App Rep 336（英國刑事上訴法院）。凡證人向警務人員口述筆記，他不須查閱確認正文；如警務人員向證人讀出他所記下的資料，便已足夠：R v Mills, R v Rose,見上文。如與警務人員共同合作提供共同的筆記，在實行上沒有可反駁的地方：R v Mak Shek Kin [1988] HKC 633; R v Kwok Shing Wing [1988] HKC 602。如在會面的過程中警務人員作筆記及在稍後對事實仍然記憶鮮明時寫下較完整的筆記，或可使用該筆記恢復記憶：R v Cheng (1976) 63 Cr App Rep 20（英國上訴法院）。即使文件如提供為證據便不獲接納，可用該文件恢復記憶：Maugham v Hubbard (1828) 8 B & C 14。無論何時證人恢復其較早時陳述的記憶，裁判官有責任召回有關的陳述，針對已作出的證據訊問，及審問證人或建議有關的當事人審問證人：R v Leung Siu Tong [1987] 1 HKC 423。 |
| 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。