375.
398
623
624
After all apart from section 22 Court cannot even see these documents at all. in recent case refused to mark anything for identification. Emphasises where exhibits do mark for identification it is only for conven-
ience does not enhance that object or document.
~. 22 Court may draw reasonable inference from form or contents of document. Cannot be con- stowed at whole set of documents and decide their admissibility. Must look at them individually without looking at them together. If application fors are inadmissible on ground that reasonable diligence had not been taken then the drafts by themselves became irrelevant and became inadmissible.
Ïassociate with Mr. Hampton's remarks.
Mr. Sceats: In relation to admission of application-clas: ecof application, Cheng Cheuk Fun has already identified his signatures. Not question of section 22 applying - bankers have already identified the documents. Information contained in application disclose numbered bank accounts.
These accounts are held by a person or persons who is a beneficiary from the proceeds of the corrupt transactions and that person is a conspirator. Not necessary for us to identify who that person is. Once Your Honour has agreed drafts issued in pursuance to applications by iir. Cheng and r. dong Your Honour has before you numbered bank accounts which form part of the totality of the evidence when looking at the admissibility of the other documents now before you. Not suggesting domino theory by r. Hampton in so far as Your Honour admits a document.Your Honour is in possession of information gained by ruling in a set of documents. That material is available to Your Honour. When Lee ..ah was applicant for
90 material for Your Honour to assess Fr3 and FF96. Facts and also payee's are the same persons. in considering these drafts while these drafts are Tang Wah's where identity are not traced, numbered accounts are these which have been already considered re applications made by Cheng and the long brothers.
Court: The rincipal question re these documents is whether they are relevant. From the evidence I have heard from the witnesses in this case I consider that all the documents which the Crown seeks to be admitted are relevant not only to the main charge of conspiracy but also to the 2 cther charges against the 1st accused and one other charge against the 2nd accused which are set out in the indictment.
•