413
652
390.
com
or
a cash cheque give it to some minimum / messenger at the station and say
60 and cash it for me and if messenger to save himself a trip to the
bank pops down to Uncle ma and says cash chic for me and take the cash
and
back to //for Ma to give it to his accountant Cheng nothing unreasonable. Indeed it is a matter of inference flowing from such cash cheque. As I recall there is a gap of some days between dates on cheques and dates of their negotiation This gap contradicts inference which my learned friend has put on this and support the natural situation which I have indicated.
My learned friend goes on to mention that D1 was responsible for seeing that his subordinates perform their duties. How could this blatant
disregard of the law happen under the noses of 2 of the most senior men in the Division without knowing about it. This again seems to me
to be a very dangerous doctrine of vicarious liability for the actions of others and so far as I am aware only until now has been put forward in relation to offences of strict liability committed by servants of licensees only. But this is not the only startling proposition made. Surely we should have some evidence from Crown that prosecutions against gambling and other types of vice were lower than average in that Division against Divisions or in the same Division under different
commanders.
Purely we should have some evidence as to what propor- tionate proportion that so called protected establishments bore to the
total number of establishments raided or prosecuted in the Division.
The prosecution are saying accused ought to have known about these
establishments. If there were only these establishments in Division
and no others, just concede that it is a valid proposition. If there were a total of several thousand in Division why should senior officers
be expected to know them all. we can argue if there was such a blatant disregard for the law that accused must know what was going on so must his District Commander-why was he not removed from the post?
Answer lies in surprising volt-face in relation to this case and in relation to the case against Temple.
other
K.v.Temple: In that case, page 3, Crown accepts and says that accused did not not carry out his duties butwere gifts from his sub- ordinates. No inference could be drawn he was not performing his duty but in this case exactly opposite is urged upon you. Proof of payment of money is that accused knew what was going on perhaps actually assisted by information/raid that is the inescapable inference if it was not
an inescapable inference 10 months ago it is not now and if similar