Thanks Bill! This also reminds me of a case in Hong Kong, even though it is not strictly double jeopardy. AU Pui Kuen, a police detective, fatally shot a young man after a quarrel due to a minor traffic matter. The coroner's court made the finding of lawful killing, but the detective was then charged with murder and convicted. After appeals, the murder charge was overturned and he was convicted of manslaughter. I suppose disagreements between the coroner's court and the CJ did not happen too much in colonial Hong Kong?
In the O. J. Simpson case, all jurors were African Americans, and he was acquitted.
In the case of four police officers assaulting Rodney King, the jury (with no African American) acquitted the officers despite video evidence.
In the case of four police officers assaulting Rodney King, the jury (with no African American) acquitted the officers despite video evidence.
It is one of the shortcomings of the jury system. Jurors bearing bias views are not preventable. Every where is like that when emotion supersedes ration. In HK, we had the Wong Tai Sin Special Duty Squad case involving 13 policemen. They pressurized the drug addict to provide drug trafficking information which ended up assaulting the drug addict with sledge hammer and planted half a pound of heroin on him. The policemen were charged with assault and perverting the course of justice. The jury acquitted all of them. It was the well known 十三太保 case. After their acquittal, they were reinstated while the other team members given immunity to testify against them all resigned. I happened to know some of the defendants in that case.
Since C mentioned AU Pui Kuen 區沛權 in the comment, let me talk some more about the case. AU Pui Kuen was an off duty CID officer. On 9 January 1976, he drove his private car along Argyle St turning into Sai Yeung Choi St with a female passenger on board. The body of his car had contact with one of the 3 young men crossing the road. An argument ensued which was followed by a fist fight. AU was knocked to the ground. He withdrew his service revolver and chased after the young men who fled the scene. He shot one of the men twice at the back. The man later died of gun shot wound. His third shot hit the ground and the bullet ricochetted and hit a bystander.
A Coroner's inquest was held. A jury of 3 returned a verdict of "excusable homicide" Despite this finding, the prosecution charged AU with murder and shooting with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. In the first high court trial, AU was convicted of murder but acquitted of the second count. He appealed the conviction. He was represented by Jackson-Lipkin who was later a high court judge and after retirement, he lived on dole with his barrister wife Lucille Fung. They were both convicted of obtaining property by deception, namely, deceiving the government dole money. It is a side story. AU's appeal was allowed on the ground that the trial judge Simon Li 李福善 misdirected the jury on the law of self-defence. A retrial was ordered. Then there was legal blunder caused by the Court of Appeal hearing the case. AU appealed to the Privy Council. The appeal was dismissed though certain criticism was directed at the way the Court of Appeal handled the case. A second trial took place. This time, AU was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. He again appealed the conviction which was again dismissed.
From the 3 appeal cases I read, if I were in the jury, I would have no hesitation to convict him of murder. I can only say it was still the "dark age" in police history. The facts of the case were overwhelming. A murder conviction is inevitable if the trial takes place today. Unlike the Zimmerman case, there were eye witnesses in the crowded street.
AU Pui Kuen's case is a classic case of miscarriage of justice. His story was about the threat of being snatched of his service revolver. To me, it was a fairy tale defence rather than self-defence. That was an era without clear separation of power and independence of judiciary. The fact that Denys Roberts 羅弼時爵士could once hold the office of the AG and then the Chief Secretary and then Chief Justice speaks for itself.
AU's retrial was not an example of double jeopardy. It was in the public interest to retry him for an offence of such gravity. He might have gone through the ordeal of 3 court proceedings but the interest of justice outweighed his personal interest. It is interesting to know the idea of retrial when a conviction is quashed did not come from the common law tradition of England. It came from the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. This legal concept was subsequently incorporated in criminal procedure codes of many other Commonwealth jurisdictions.
seldom victimn could tell his friend he was trying to escape, and seldom killer would tell police the victimn was getting away. the evidence in this case shall be more than many homicide case. yet ordinary people will call police immediately when they knew their friend in danger, maybe it's not strang that an uneducated black girl would not do that, since she was afraid of police.a judge is not smarter than jury in this kind of situation, you know, HK judge often make ridiculous judgement. jury trial provides both sides a chance to draw lottery, if you lose, you are unlucky. while judgement from judge always could not convince both sides and cause endless political struggle. once you choose the benefit of jury trial, you shall accept that sometime jury will be as naughty as HK judge.
回覆刪除Jury of Zimmerman case is a normal jury. when you choose the benefit of jury trial, you shall accept that sometime jury will make naughty decision such as Simpson's case and Rodney King's case.
回覆刪除At times aberrant results from jury trial is unavoidable. We have to accept it as a fact in the jury trial.
刪除Thank you, Bill, for providing so many details about the case. I read an account of the case written by the late Mr. LAU Kai Fat 劉啓法, a retired Police chief inspector. The ballistic expert said that the bullet entered the victim Mr. LAI's back which he was running away from AU, and the distance between the two men were more than several metres. This basically destroyed the claims of "self-defence" and "snatching of the revolver". AU's life was not being threatened if LAI was running away with his back facing AU.
回覆刪除Was the second trial in the Court of Appeal ordered by the Privy Council? Are the appeal cases available online? Thanks again!
The Court of Appeal when hearing the case for the first time allowed the appeal and ordered re-trial. AU appealed to the Privy Council on point of law about the way the Court of Appeal handled the first appeal. The Privy Council did not interfere with this decision but made certain procedural comments. All 3 appeal cases can be found online. For the Court of Appeal cases, go to http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/judgment.jsp and then click on Advanced Search, then in "this phrase" type Au Pui Kuen. CACC1028/1976 is the first appeal and CACC135/1979 is the second appeal. Since I have retrieved the case numbers for you here, you may simply do a quick search by typing the case number. As for the Privy Council case, I go to http://www.bailii.org (British and Irish Legal Information Institute) and search Au Pui Kuen.
刪除We can find something similar as to the “career path” of the late CJ Denys Roberts in the present date Singapore.
回覆刪除The present CJ was the AG from 1 Oct 2010 to 25 June 2012 before becoming a Judge of Appeal on 1 Aug 2012 and then as CJ on 7 Nov 2012.
The present AG was a High Court Judge from June 2010 to 25 June 2012 before becoming the AG on the same date, succeeding the present CJ.
It is not a pleasure to see such an exchange of roles. When we have appointed a district judge or judicial officer of same rank or above, there is no return.
刪除