397
374.
620
Court resumes at 3.55
621
622
Nr. Hampton: Section 20 of Evidence Ordinance. sufficient for me to say none of the documents which have been put before the Court under that section or under that section complied with section 22 because the requirements of that section have not been complied with under sub- section (a) and (b) of that section. In addition, no proof has been offered which complies with definition of bank in the Evidence Ordinance pp11+ contains statement purportedly issued by the Manufacturer's Hanover
don't know how far doctrine of judicial knowledge goes very much doubt it has been established by character or virtue of Act of Parliament judicial knowleûge encompasses this aspect of proof under impression that manufacturer's ranover Trust was an .. organization. Foreign company carrying on business in England but not in Colony.
Trust
Mr. Gunston: ly learned friend dealt with these matters very fully but on subject whether Crown has been reasonably diligent under s. 22(1) (b) it seems strange when Mr. Guy went to Sakewell to make inquiries, he looked into telephone directory and Electoral Register. Crown could have checked these 2 documents and i would have thought that place he should have gone to is the bank and bank was place to go and malte inquiries who their customers were. In case of TMC officers they could get banks to co-operate with them when there are no applications all Court is left with are drafts. Unless diligent inquiries made as to the applicant, no application form should go in. Submit once we are left with drafts only certainly nothing to make them relevant to the conspiracy charge, because how can a mere draft
in any way without application form prove anything in relation to this conspiracy. Submit break in chain between conspiracy and money. Crown has no proof. Only surmise that because bank is used by co-conspirator there is connection with conspiracy. Evidence of Mr. Cheng he was merely a messenger is not reasonable to suppose that he could supply the information he did not even read English. Indeed it would seem very doubtful where the information came from. There is of course a big distinction between
it
24 and 1a in respect of PF10 and 12, Your donour has already admitted in evidence out how far Your Honour can now look at them. Furported exhibito can be admitted. Matter of 10, 11 and 12 is somewhat doubtful. Associate with nr. Hampton looking at all exhibits in a set or group.