JUDGMENT

Steve Shim J:

This is an application by counsel for the defendant to cross-examine PW1 as to what transpired between him and counsel for the plaintiff during an adjournment. It has been alleged by counsel for the defendant that PW1 and counsel for the plaintiff were seen discussing matters arising out of the cross-examination of PW1 suggesting that PW1 was being coached in his evidence while still in the process of being cross-examined. The application is opposed by counsel for the plaintiff.

Now, there are of course discussions and discussions. I would not think that a discussion between counsel and his witness during an adjournment in matters of a general nature relating to the case as a whole and which is absolutely essential to an effective prosecution or defence of his case should attract any adverse implications even though it may occasionally and by force of necessity transgress into matters arising out of the crossexamination of the witness. Counsel for the defendant has drawn attention to the case Moomin bin Seman v. PP [1993] 4 CLJ 61 wherein Richard Tallala J cited with approval the observation of Hogan CJ in the Hong Kong case of Lau Pak Ngam v. R [1966] Crim