389
604
605
606
366.
r. Me pton: In reply to my learned friend's address on admissibility first of all wish again to draw the Court's attention to section 22 of the Evidence Ordinance to stress on certain parts which appear in para. 22(1)(b). My learned friend's submission is of course based on this
section it is perhaps bound up to a certain extent with the relevance as opposed to strict admissibility - e.g. in relation to application forms for drafts and not the drafts themselves and where application forms exist followed by the issue of drafts and where it can be shown that the signatories of the applications are co-conspirators or in some way connected with the facts of the prosecution case. The Crown rely on this as an additional aspect or factor of relevance and whereas there are no application forms and only the drafts themselves the Crown's
relevance argument is confined to the coincidence of dates and aounts. Coincidence of dates and amounts depend on a certain extent on what he allees to be crafts purchased for accounts of 2nd Defendant coinciding in date and possibly amounts with other drafts which the Crom allege were purchased for accounts of the 2nd Defendent. It will seem to me then that it would be appropriate to deal first of allith application forms. If the application forms go in the Crown's relevance argument is so much the stronger, if the application forms go out the Crown's relevance arguments is extremely weak. In relation to application forms there are several categories: what if I might describe as the Li Wah
set of application forms and under shorthand heading I include the Tangah Lee So wah, Fred Cheung etc. names mentioned by Chow Jun Lung (P 19). That group of names. The 2nd category are those which were apparently signed by Cheng Cheuk under various aliases. The
3rd category are those signed by the longs, wong Taking and song Chi ing and the final category were signatures appearin, or presumably appearing on application forms which have not been proved. in this aspect Crown apparently concede and question properly that where no inquiry has been made or perhaps where no inquiry has been proved to have been made in an endeavour to find these persons who signed the application forms the Crown apparently concede that no reasonable Giligence has been proved to have been shown and therefore the
application forms are not admissible and they have quite properly not sought to put them in. This can be seen in the chart supplied by the prosecution in P115, PP15, FP18, FP22, PP21, 116, 117, 118 and 105. section 22(1)(b) reads: uite clearly there is no evidence that