221
328
329
330
198.
(Mr. Hampton objects to this evidence as hearsay name of Uncle Wah is not co-conspirator in charge.)
(Kr. Sceats: Would apply to amend charge by addition of Uncle Wah and Liu Tak Choy.)
Courth Were these names disclosed at time of indictment?
•
(Mr. Sceats: This was hearsay evidence but now that evidence has been given. One is not adding any new element to charge which two accused face.)
Mr. Hampton: Before being heard on application to amend. Wish to put certain questions to witness not of cross-examination in general but strictly regarding amendment but if Your Honour feels it more correct that questions be put through Your Honour I will approach it that way.
Mr. Sceats: I prefer questions be put through Your Honour.
pr
Question put to witness: You said you made a statement to ICAC in
that statement did you mention Uncle Wah and Liu Tak Choy? Witness: Yes.
Mr. Hampton: Strongly oppose this amendment. There is no merit in
it.
Crown have already been quite properly alerted by Defence in
our original motion to quash from the disclosure of co-conspirators'
names. All names which it is alleged were co-conspirators and which
the prosecution knew about should have been included in that amendment.
Any further amendment is in my respectful submission an exercise of discretion in favour of the prosecution without any reason being advanced by the prosecution why. Night be one is unfamiliar with
the indictment rules or unfamiliar with one's case. Once this has
been pointed out there is no further excuse for further failure
Defence are badly prejudiced by this very point point I raised this morning and I wish that amended charge be quashed for non-compliance
with indictment rules.
Surprised that we had
Mr. Guaston: I respectfully agree with that.
one very extensive amendment already and we wonder when it will end.
Especially prejudicial to apply to do it this way when Defence started
to ask for particulars and was refused out of hand and having refused