395
617
618
K
372.
Relevance: Dealt with earlier also I invited Your Honour to deal with
each document singly assuming for the moment that my submission fails on
that invitation if it is successful then it is the end of the relevance
argument except in relation to drafts with C.J... Cunningham. There is no relevance left. Assuming Your Honour decides to ueal with them in a group, my learned friend's painstaking and carefully constructed argument dealing with coincidence. of amounts and dates is mere speculation. There
is not a shred of evidence that any of the accounts which Crown allege
to be those of 1A are in fact those of the 1st accused and if Your Honour
Joes the exercise of listing the drafts individually and listing the
monthly amounts there are some differing totals from month to month that no compelling or irresistile difference can be shown.
paid on
behalf of the Crown that it is surprising the drafts begin at or about
the 1st Defendant's posting to Bay View and end at or about the time of his departure. No evidence called as to how many European officers were
attached to that Division or sub-division or whether drafts coincided
with their dates of posting or departure. Said that 1A has geographical
ties with Manchester and other places. No evidence being called to show that he was the only officer in that Division with such geographical ties. Indeed European officer as recovered usually associates Bank A/C in England with European officer. Why should not local officer with an eye to retirement in England have geographical ties there. He says when you have a £500 draft to Barclays and in mumbered sequence #50C draft to National Westminster. This proves they are both to 1st accused. Natural
inference 2 drafts of similar amounts to 2 different places to 2 different people. Nothing can be gained from twin aspect". What does
it boil down to ? It boils down to sheer speculation not proof and if
Court is asked to draw an inference and facts are equally consistent
with an inference that those accounts were not those of 1st accused as
with fact they were. Such an inference may not be drawn. Inference
must be so reinforced that the possibility of other inference so destroyed that the mind is brought to say with irresistible reason that this is the
only conceivable situation. Liu, DJ in turgeon's case has put that extremely well. Numbered accounts. Complete failure of proof in relation
to these accounts. All drafts in relation thereto should be ruled
inadaissible together with tendered copies and application forms. S far as IP3 and 96 are concerned these are drafts allegedly payable to Barclays Bank A/C C.J.M. Cunningham and because of the coincidence of