IN "H" COT 22 7 ARE AL
on appeal from the High Court
1976 No. 96 (Criminal).
BETWEEN
CECIL JAMES MAITREY CUNNINGHAM
BENNO THOMPSON
Appellants
and
THE QUEEN
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.
Date: 13th July 1975.
JUDG
N T
Respondent
Pickering, J.A.:
The two appellants, both formerly superintendents in the Royal Hong Kong Folice Force, appeal against their convictions for conspiracy, the original particulars of which were that on divers dates between the unths of July 1971 and February 1974 they conspired with three named station sergeants and with other persons unknown to obstruct the course of public justice in that the five of them should act contrary to their public duty as police officers in relation to the administraci n of the lati. During the course of the trial the names of a further thirteen alleged co-conspirators were added to the Particulars of Offence. The prosecution's allegation was of an agreement for the large scale acceptance of bribes from the operators of gambling stalls and vice establishments in return for immunity from prosecution.
The first appellant was additionally charged with and found guilty of making a false statutory declaration contrary to s. 36(a) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) and both were charged with neglecting or failing to comply with a s.14(1)(b) notice contrary to s. 14(4) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201). On that charge the first appellant was convicted whereas the second appellant was acquitted.
It was a ground of appeal that a separate trial should have been held in regard to the conspiracy charge. This was a matter of discretion for the bal judge and since it appeared that most of the evidence relied upon in relation to the second charge would be