212
312
313
189.
occurred after his share in conspiracy was complete and therefore fact he worked there could have no relevance. Fact that his business card was found in possession of 1st Accused might have some relevance but card does not state the Bayside Night Club but something entirely different thus evidence is only introduced to create the most objectionable prejudice as Mr. Sceats asked him whose name man who has fled the Colony on some other charge. No probative value
to find out name of his boss.
a
Mr. Sceats: Crown's contention in this case 1st Accused has an interest
in Barclays Bank account 40306916 and Westminister Bank account 80696573. This witness has identified 2 applications for drafts to be issued in favour of 2 numbered bank accounts as having been signed by him and
bank drafts purchased by him for those numbered accounts. Evidence of
card is to show some connection between 1st Accused and witness.
Documents necessary to establish connection between him and Bayside
Night Club. Evidence highly relevant both between 1st Accused and
numbered bank accounts.
lir. Hampton: Had this witness been a defendant it is just possible business card might have been adni ssible. Quite clearly name of his
boss cannot be relevant under any circumstances. As to business card,
this man is witness in Court. Witness granted immunity for full and frank evidence. Any evidence between him and 1st Accused should be asked by my learned friend.)
Court: Card admitted as an exhibit. Evidence given by witness regarding
employment by the Bayside Night Club or Supper Club is also admitted in evidence.)
Mr. Sceats: Will make witness's statement to ICAC available to
Defence if they wish to avail themselves of it.
Mr. Hampton: Ask to adjourn his cross-examination to 2.30 p.m.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gunston:
20
Are these documents signed by you? (Exh. FD7)
A
Yes.
1