R v Fang (No. 2)

The matter before the court was a criminal trial for the alleged murder of a person by the respondent, Fang. The prosecution sought to call an adult Crown witness, who had previously been found unfit to be tried in separate criminal proceedings, to give evidence. The primary issue before the court was whether the witness was competent to give sworn evidence in this trial. The court had to consider the applicable principles of competence inquiry under sections 12 and 13 of the Evidence Act 1995, as well as the presumption of competence.

The court found that the presumption of competence was not displaced, and therefore the witness was competent to give sworn evidence. The court considered the relevant legislative provisions and the principles established by previous cases, including the decision in R v Fang (No. 1). The court held that the witness's previous finding of unfitness to be tried did not necessarily mean they were incompetent to give evidence. The court found that the witness had the ability to understand questions, provide answers, and had a rational memory of the events in question. The court also considered the witness's medical evidence and the opinion of medical experts.

The court concluded that the witness was competent to give sworn evidence in the murder trial, and that their evidence could be admitted under the Evidence Act 1995. The court held that the witness's previous finding of unfitness to be tried was not determinative of their competence to give evidence, and that the presumption of competence had not been displaced. The trial proceeded with the witness's evidence being considered by the jury.

The court did not make any specific orders regarding the witness's competence, but rather found that the witness was competent to give sworn evidence. The trial continued, and the jury was instructed to consider the witness's evidence along with other evidence presented in the case.