|
THE
QUEEN
VS
ANTHONY
THOMPSON
Supreme
Court
9th February, 1983.
Alcantara, J.
Mr. G . C. Gandhi for Prosecution
Mr. H. E. Elrington for Defence
Criminal
law - Evidence - What constitutes confirmatory evidence.
J
U D G M E N T
I find
there is a case to go to the jury. It is for the jury to decide
what witness they believe and to what extent.
However
the submission of Counsel for the Defence has dealt on a very
important matter of law. What is confirmatory evidence according
to Section 89 of Evidence Ordinance.
I have
been referred to the Belize Court of Appeal decision of Cowo
13 of 1979. After receiving help from Counsel on both
sides for which I am grateful I have come to the following
decisions.
| 1.
|
Not
answering to a charge is not confirmatory evidence to
conform to Section 89 of Evidence Ordinance. |
| 2.
|
The
admission to Dominguez for whatever it may be worth can
confirm the confession given to Engleton. |
| 3. |
I
think it is proper for me at this stage to say that I
shall direct the jury to disregard the evidence of both
Seguras on the question of identification by voice.
That evidence if left to the jury would be too dangerous,
as the quality of identification is very poor. The rest
of evidence will be left to jury. |
----------OO----------
|