Police and Right to Appeal An interesting point was raised in the Second Branch of the Kiangsu High Court on April 14 concerning the position of the police in cases in which convicted men appeal us of the Shanghai case at issue involved en who had been sentenced to 20 months and years, respectively, for attempting, Ly means of threats, to extort $3 from a compatriot at the Ewo Road Jetty on March 8. Judges Sung Yuan (presiding), Kao and Yih' heard-the appeal' and Mr. Wong.
Teen-nan, procurator, appeared of their Sehalf of the Government. Counsel appearing in the ease were Mr. T.
Van, for appellants, and Mr.
ig.S. Kum, for the police.
The convicted men based their appeals on the ground that there was no extortion, that extortion had not been proved. The second accused was a friend of the com-for,'which both men were charged and sentenced. Complainant, according to Mz. Van, showed that hie did not desire to press the charge by not patting in an appearance, Procurater branded counsel's remarks as ridiculous and referred the Court to complainant's statements in the lower court. There was no need, he said, for com. Flainant to be present at the app Mr. Kum remarked that, in the petition of appeal, no grounds were disclosed, to which Judge Sung replied that, in accordance with the criminal' procedure, the question of fact could be proceeded. with and no " grounds wed be disclosed. Verbal explanations, he said, could be brought up open court. So long as no questions of law were brought up, everything: in the present petition was in order, In the event of legal points being raised, these aust be clearly stated in the petition of appeal.
Mr. Kum then questioned Mr. Van's standing and asked, why he had fled the petition of appeal for accused. Judge Sung replied that Mr. Van had not brought the appeal on his own initiative: he had been instructed by the wives of the oecused men and, according to law, wives could file petitions on behalf of their husbands.
The Judge here drew attention to the fact that, when second hearings ook place, namely, hearings before the High Court, the police did not have the right t9 serve as respond= exts if the accused men appealed, The police were entitled to express us oF to. give any planations they wished but, after the men had been convicted by the Ker court, the police had no farther connection, directly, with the ease: they had severed all relationships. The procurator acted behalf of the Government, who swore now the respondents and it was he who should conduct the ease for respondents, not the police. He would give his opinions but, if the police wished to give any Additional statements, of express any further opinions or explana~ tions, they were entitled to do s0.
Mr. Kum contended that the police wore the respondents because they lad brought the original charges. Suppose, he asked, the appellante on the ajneal, who would be responsible for taking the te 'a highs What Provision was there which denied the police the authority to respond Supposing the appellants wore released and it. was Geeided to lodge a further appeal, were the police not entitied to. do this? The present charge. was a serious one and it had been looked Nyon by the lower court judge as Leing serio The crime had taken place on a publi jetty, where many Toafers assembled. to extort money from people, 30 the judge in the lower court took a serious view of the matter by imposing heavy sen= tenes to serve as a deterrent and to prevent others from followings the example of accused. If the police were denied the appeal, it would be effectively to suppress crime, Judge Sung said that he would vender judgment on the 18th instant but he could not do otherwise than to deny the right of the police to respondents, Asked by the Court whether they had anything to say, the accused ten said they were being malicious prosecuted,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.