I think R v Cooper is an interesting case.

In this case, the defendant was charged with an offence involving the importation of cannabis concealed in a television. One of the evidence concerned were two letters written by the defendant’s wife.

The letters were found in their room and they were not posted. One of the letter said this:

“We have been hasless for a couple of weeks (all the houses) and the strain was showing. There was a sharp increase in the consumption of alcohol and general erratic behaviour. But, Ali’s contact came thru for us last Friday and had us all smiling.”

The Court of Appeal said that before a defendant can be cross-examined on a third part’s account of events, he must have accepted that account as true. Furthermore, the letters should be inadmissible as hearsay, and to admit the letters is an attempt to get round the general rule under which one spouse was not a compellable witness against the other.

At first I thought the letters should be admissible, as the jury could infer from the letters that the defendant was indeed expecting the arrival of a consignment of drugs; but then again, it would seem quite unfair to draw an adverse inference against the defendant based on the letters which contents he was not aware of. He clearly shouldn’t be responsible for what he didn’t know – there could be a possibility of fabrication by his wife.

On the other hand, if the offence commited is murder, and it could be inferred from the letters that the defendant and murdered someone, then in my humblest opinion, I would think it is both in the interest of justice and public interest to convict the defendant. I personally think that the nature of the offence commited will influence the outcome of the decision.

I think it will also be fair to look into the surrounding circumstances (if, hypothetically, it becomes an issue) ie the defendant’s relationship with his wife. Did they have a quarrel recently? Is there any possibility of the wife revenging on the defendant? Did the wife (or the defendant) have another affair? I think all that could be taken into account in deciding whether the letter is reliable.

Then again, maybe I think too much when I read… But then again, you can have all sorts of opinion on law since it is concerned of balancing between two extremes instead of what’s right and what’s wrong, isn’t it?

Both Devlin Report and 11th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee regarded mistaken identification as the greatest cause of actual or possible wrongful convictions.

I thought to myself: that can’t be right. The greatest cause should be something like, police fabricating or concocting stories, or other form of abuse of power.

A little voice in my head then reminded me of the times when I was a school prefect, where we were quite sure of someone who break the school rules and how we tried to bend the rules (unauthorised, obviously) to catch the culprit. Most of the time, they were the real culprits. I suppose MOST (not ALL) police have the same mentality: that they know who the criminal is, but they just don’t have enough evidence to convict him, hence they have to fabricate stories.

Which explained why police fabrication cannot be the greatest cause of miscarriage of justice.

I then remember how often I pat someone on their shoulders, thinking they are someone I know, but it turn out to be that I had identified the wrong person. It’s so easy to identify the wrong person, because most people resemble each other in one way or another – the same hairstyle, hair colour, voice, height, skin colour, clothings…

Which is why we need the Turnbull direction (derived from the case R v Turnbull) when dealing with identification evidence.

Turnbull direction requires the judge to warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused based on identification evidence, to tell the jury why such a warning is needed, and direct the jury to examine the circumstances when the identification was made.

The court in R v Turnbull also suggested factors that can help determine whether an identification is mistaken, such as whether the identifying witness was drunk, the distance between the identifying witness and the accused, was the observation impeded, etc.

Next time when I notice someone that I think I know on the street, I’m going to tell myself: hey girl, you can be mistaken. Look carefully before you say hello.

In the case of Romanathan Somanathan, the priest was the rapist. This is a case on bad character evidence, but today all I want to do is to share the facts of this case.

The appellant was 42 year-old. The victim, W was 30 year-old. Her marriage broke down. She came to England and started attending the Hindu Temple, where the appellant was the “Aya” – the main priest. After several conversations, the appelant went to her flat to conduct a poojah (blessing). While he was there, he raped her.

I thought W would have lodged a police report as soon as she could but funnily enough, she didn’t. She continue to attend the Hindhu Temple, and the appellant continue to contact her. The appellant visited her again to give her a gift he obtained on a religious trip to Himalayas, and he raped her again. W became pregnant and had an abortion. In the following year, W finally made a police report.

At first I thought this was a case where the priest had somehow hoodwinked the victim that rape is part of the process of blessing, blah blah blah, but I was wrong. After the first rape, W had told her friend that her priest had come to her house, didn’t want to leave, and had bolted the door. He had pinned her to the floor and she struggled. She couldn’t fight him off. He said they should be together. She said no several times, but afterwards she felt weak and dirty. She said he forced her.

Sometimes we think we are smart for not falling for the tricks of the so-called religious people, but just because we are smart it does not mean that we can fight with someone stronger than us. It is still important to be a little paranoid sometimes by not letting anyone into your house when you are alone and vulnerable to attacks. To quote Professor Moody in Harry Potter: “Constant vigilance.” Over-sensitivity is not necessarily a bad thing, so don’t trust people for the reputation of their profession. Vicars and priests can be bad; it was portrayed nicely in Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Oh, and please don’t let your guard down when you are depressed. Bad things happen in life. It’s okay to feel sad, but sadness is no reason to do something irrational. Always, always, always think before you leap.