19 Sept 1984
THE QUEEN v. NIRMAL KUMAR VYAS AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. NIRMAL KUMAR VYAS AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC258/1984
D1's answer to charge was admissible: timing between inadmissible statements and an imperfect interpreter did not render it involuntary and the trial judge was entitled to admit it. D2's conviction was unsafe: the trial judge erred in disregarding D2's photographic identification of Chief Inspector Chan and failed properly to assess the consequential evidential gap; because the conviction relied mainly on the confessional statement that gap rendered the conviction unsafe and it must be quashed.