25
9
6.
•
to their public duty as police officers of any overt acts of such acting or non acting and generally such additional particulars as are required to fit in with the wording of the Indictment Rules assuming them to be fair statement of what charge sheet should contain. Necessary for me to say that there is a case which appears to be against that application. Mr. Gunston will go into details.
R. v. Hammersley & others 1958 42
Cr. App. Report p.207
Para. 4066 Archbold Foot p.1534 & remainder 4066
Wording of charge in that case more or less in terms of present charges. That case can be distinguished from present one as in that one there were complete depositions and in addition Crown had supplied complete and detailed particulars to Defendants. Only quarrel post facto argument that particulars should have formed part of the charge.
At first sight agree but really a support for my argument Crown recognise particulars insufficient so they supplied them voluntarily. Here we apply for an order for particulars and if Your Honour order they must form part of the charge when supplied.
Full Court.
No
Recent Hong Kong case conspiracy to bribe not so far reported as I am aware. Cr. App. 911/74 p.1 & 2 on particulars. application made for particulars in Court 1st instance.
word.
Bottom page 2. 'Lack of particularity'.
Application at earliest opportunity.
Not sufficient to question charge.
Bribe ambiguous
Bound up in fairness. Is it fair to Defendants?
Unfair to Defendants to face vague charge.
10
2nd Point :
Conspiracy charge with substantive charge. What is admissible
or one may not be on other. Apply to avoid position of evidence mistaking. Law restated reoently. R. v. Jones & others 1974 59 Cr. App. 120, referred to Archbold in supplement 4073 (a). Not too technical a matter of the nature if case be shown that juxtaposition of a conspiracy charge with other charges might lead to unfairness. Sufficient reason made
for separate trial.