[manslaughter of child – Chinese defendant – interpreter]

R. v. Awaan

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 5 April 1842

Source: Launceston Advertiser, 7 April 1842

            Awaan, (a Chinese) was indicted for the manslaughter of Sarah Awaan, his child, on the 24^th January last.

            The prisoner was arraigned and pleaded “Not Guilty.”  It was found necessary to procure the services of an interpreter, Awaan, not being sufficiently conversant with the English language to understand the proceedings.  Another Chinese was present in the Court, who after being catechised by his Honor, undertook to act as interpreter.  It was found, however, that the case would occupy so much time that the Court was adjourned till twelve o’clock on the following day, his Honor remarking that it did not tend much to the administration of justice to tire both the judge and jury.

Pedder C.J., 6 April 1842

Source: Launceston Courier, 11 April 1842

            Awaan (a Chinese) was indicted for the manslaughter of his infant child Sarah Awaan, on the 24th of January last.

            The Attorney-General briefly stated the outline of the case to the Jury. The prisoner was a married man, and on the 24th January last he and his wife had a quarrel, during which he struck her a blow on the head; it appears she fell down with the child in her arms, which prisoner afterwards picked up. The wife then threw something at him, which it would be shewn by witnesses, hit either the child or the father. It would be proved by a Medical Gentleman, that the child’s death was occasioned by a blow upon the head, but whether inflicted by the prisoner or his wife was exclusively a question for the Jury. Having been committed by a Coroner’s Inquest, he felt it his duty - representing as he was sorry to say he did, a grand jury, to place the prisoner upon his trial, and have the matter investigated by a jury. If they came to the conclusion that the blow was inflicted at the time of the wife’s fall, and was occasioned by the assault committed upon her by Awaan, he apprehended, under his Honor’s direction, that he was guilty of the offence with which he stood charged, although he might have entertained no malice propense against the child. If on this head they entertained any doubt, they would acquit him. There was one observation he would make in conclusion namely, that although upon the inquest it was very desirable to obtain every possible information as to the cause of death, the statement of the wife, which was then received, could not be admitted as evidence against the prisoner upon his trial.

            A Chinese named John Wing, understanding a little more English than the prisoner, and professing to be a Christian, was sworn in as interpreter.

            After some difficulty the prisoner was apparently made to understand the nature of the offence with which he was charged, and pleaded Not Guilty. Then came the usual form of challenging the jury, which the prisoner evidently did not at all understand. However, after considerable delay, the interpreter informed his Honor, “that the prisoner liked those gentlemen very well,” and they were accordingly sworn.

            The first witness examined was Mr. George Griffiths who deposed in substance, that he knew the prisoner and his wife;’ did not know the name of their child; recollected on the 24th January hearing a noise at prisoner’s house, his wife and he were quarrelling; saw her come out of the house abusing him; she had the child in her arms; Awaan struck her upon the head with his fist; she fell down, but shortly afterwards got up, and went into the house; Awaan then picked up the child - it was crying; his wife came out of the house and threw something which hit either Awaan or the child that he had in his arms; he said something which I could not understand, and made motions as if it had hit his child; Awaan was sober, his wife was not; it was about 6 o’clock in the evening.

            Benjamin Dolphin. - Was lodging in Awaan’s house on the 24th January last; I was in bed on Tuesday morning, when I heard prisoner’s wife call out, “the child is dying!” I got up and took it in my arm, when it expired; I had lived three or four weeks in the house at that time.

            John Doughty, Esq., surgeon. - Went to the house occupied by the prisoner and his wife on the 25th January; saw Dolphin there, he was nursing the child - it was dead, and had on it’s night clothes. I examined the child at the inquest, and found an injury on the back part of the head; it must have been caused by a blow or a fall. I opened the head, and found a corresponding injury on the brain.

            The interpreter, who during this examination evinced a great deal more anxiety than the prisoner at the bar, seemed quite at a loss to convey the meaning of this last sentence; and the Attorney-General was somewhat puzzled to simplify the answer. When at last the interpreter had explained the statement of the witness, the prisoner held up his hands and gazed around the Court with most graphic looks of astonishment, and an inexpressible appearance of horror in his features. The suspicions of the judge were immediately excited as to the faithfulness of the interpreter’s translation, and upon enquiry the prisoner’s astonishment was easily accounted for, the fertile imagination of his countryman having transmogrified the “corresponding injury” into a “leaden bullet,” and thus informed the wonder-stricken Awaan, “that upon opening the brain the doctor discovered a leaden bullet!” This trifling error having been rectified the case proceeded.

            Examination of Dr. Doughty continued. - The child had been laboring under an attack of dysentery; the viscera were in an unhealthy state; the injury on the brain was about as large as a dollar, and had been inflicted about a day; the child came to its death from that injury.

            The prisoner then made, what was intended to be a defence, but totally unintelligible either to judge, jury or audience, and of course therefore to reporters. The prisoner’s manner, and energetic action, excited both pity and amusement, for it was clear that he was relating some grievance, which he felt seriously at heart. Perhaps, however, the defence was more effectual from its not being understood, for the situation of the prisoner excited a very general feeling of compassion. All that could be made out, was that his wife was out drinking, and came home tipsy, when a quarrel ensued. Some detached portions of a grievous tale of sympathy were a little intelligible; the prisoner according to his own style of expression” went out - look up to sky - no could speak - he come all over cry - one, two, three people say - look for John - he cry - him wife tipsy” - another portion had reference to certain pecuniary embarrassments, which were also described - “he send things to auction - pay rent - man come - no money - me go out catch him - him no find.” About half an hour was lost in listening to what none could understand, although much amusement was derived therefrom. The Judge summed up with usual brevity, treating the prisoner’s acquittal almost as a matter of course. The Jury without leaving the box immediately returned a verdict of not guilty.

            Had the evidence been ever so conclusive, a verdict of guilty could not have been pronounced with any degree of satisfaction. It was exceedingly doubtful whether the prisoner understood one half of what was said, and quite certain that his defence was not understood at all.