|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V8) 1 CLR 95
1909 February 20
(ASSIZE COURT OF LIMASSOL.)
[TYSER, C.J., BERTRAM, J., STUART, P.D.C., ATTA BEY AND OIKONOMIDES, J.J.]
REX
v.
AGESILAOS SOCRATI.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OP WITNESS ON DEPOSITION.
When a witness in a criminal trial is cross-examined upon his deposition, if it is desired to contradict him by the deposition, the deposition must be put in evidence.
The cross-examining party is bound by the answer of the witness, unless the deposition is put in to contradict him, and it is not admissible to state that the document does so contradict him, unless it is so put in.
The prisoner was charged with shooting one Emir Au Mehmet, near Pissouri with intent to kill.
Bucknill, K. A., for the Crown.
Zeno for the Defence.
Counsel for the Defence cross-examined the complainant with reference to certain discrepancies between his evidence and his deposition.
Judgment. THE CHIEF JUTSICE: It is important that the procedure with regard to the use of the depositions in cross- examination should be put upon a regular footing.
The matter is now regulated in England by Statute (28 and 29 Vict., c. 18., Sec. 5) which enacts as follows:-
"A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing, or reduced into writing, relative to the subject matter of the proceeding, without such writing being shown to him: but if it is intended to contradict such witness by the writing, his attention must, before such contradictory proof can be given, be called to those parts of the writing which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him: Provided always that it shall always be competent for the Judge at any time during the trial, to require the production of the writing for his inspection, and he may thereupon make such use of it for the purpose of the trial as he may think fit."
Under this enactment, it is observed in Archbold (22nd Edition, p. 377), that although a witness maybe cross-examined as to what he said before the Magistrate and the deposition may be put into his hand for that purpose, without reading it as part of the evidence of the cross-examining party, yet the latter is bound by the answer of the witness, unless the deposition is put in to contradict him, and it is not admissible to state that the deposition does so contradict him unless it is so put in.
We are of opinion that same rule of evidence should be observed in this country.
It is not necessary of course that in such cases the whole of the deposition should be read. The Court may direct such parts to be read as it considers material.
The witness's deposition was accordingly put in to contradict him, and as being, illiterate, he could not identify his mark, it was proved by the Registrar.
Prisoner convicted.