Spenser Wilkinson J

The appellant was charged before the High Court at Seremban that on or about the 23rd August, 1949, she consorted with another person named Lim Wei Yin alias Tai Kuai who was carrying arms and ammunition contrary to the provisions of Regulation 4 of the Emergency Regulations, 1948, in circumstances which raised a reasonable presumption that she intended to act with the said Tai Kuai in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public safety. On this charge the appellant was convicted and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude.

The facts were that at about 5 p.m. on the day in question an Assistant Superintendent of Police in charge of two jungle squads proceeded to an isolated squatter's house near the third mile on the Labu Road for the purpose of screening operations. The police surrounded the hut and as they were approaching it three Chinese came to the door of the house and upon seeing the police party immediately started to run. Of these Chinese who ran, two were men and the third a woman the appellant. The Assistant Superintendent of Police shouted to them to stop, without result, and he fired at one of the two men, who was wearing two conspicuous green pouches and a holster. This man was wounded and fell and proved to have a hand-grenade and ammunition in one of the pouches and a revolver in the holster attached to his waist. Meanwhile a Malay Sergeant chased the woman who had come out of the house, caught her and brought her back to where the Assistant Superintendent of Police was standing to the wounded man. The second Chinese man was caught and arrested after having been seen throwing away a revolver. It is not clear from the evidence whether the revolver carried by this man was carried conspicuously about his person or hidden in his clothing.

The Assistant Superintendent of Police gave evidence that when the appellant was brought near to the wounded man she spoke to him "in a dialect which sounded like Chinese" and that although he did not understand what was said it was quite obvious to him that the appellant knew the wounded man. In cross-examination on this point he said he judged that the accused knew the wounded man from the manner in which the conversation was conducted. The wounded man and the appellant were both Hakkas but a Hakka detective, who was present and understood Mandarin, stated that when she spoke to the wounded man he heard what she said and that she spoke in Mandarin; he repeated her words.

The appellant gave evidence on her own behalf. The gist of her defence, as disclosed in her evidence, was that these two Chinese men had appeared at the house at about four p.m. that day; that she did not know them previously; and that they asked for water; that she gave them water and then the police arrived. Both the Assessors found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and the learned trial Judge agreed with them. The only question which arises on this appeal is whether or not evidence of the words alleged to have been spoken by the appellant ought or ought not to have been admitted. The only prosecution evidence of the words is that of the detective because no one else present understood them. He said that she addressed the wounded man as follows "Tai Kuai, you have been shot by the Police and I have been arrested - good-bye". The appellant, in her evidence, denied this. She says that the wounded man spoke to her first saying "I am very unlucky to have been shot"; that she replied saying: "You deserve death" and that this conversation took place in Hakka.

The learned trial Judge referred in his summing-up to the statement as deposed to by the detective and pointed out to the Assessors that if it were true it showed that the appellant not only recognised the man, Tai Kuai, but also knew his name. And in dealing with the appellant's defence he again referred to this part of the evidence as showing that, if true, she knew the man quite well in spite of her evidence to the effect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document