395.
418
567
662
exception of offences under the Frevention of Bribery Ordinance. This situation must have been foreseen by persons responsible for drafting the Ordinance. Penalties for neglect to complyand false statements are included in that Ordinance. If I am wrong there is no proof and such proof is necessary that the document before you is a statutory declaration. It must be proved by calling the Commissioner who allegedly submitted the declaration that the same was affirmed or declared in his presence and by the accused person allegedly making it. No evidence of this notice has been called Evidence Ordinance, Oaths and Declaration Ordinance and have not discovered any Ordinance conferring evidential privilege Archbold re perjury. Necessary to prove that oath was administered. Even if there is some evidential privilege relating to that aspect of proof, no proof that 1A who signed or declared his declaration. No identification of signature being 1st accused. greater force is section 43 of Crimes Ordinance.
--
Of
is
Must be evidence from witnesses that a particular statement false witnesses as to the falsity of any statement concerned in that declaration. what is laid in the charge against accused. There is no witness who has given evidence that that statement was false. Sturgeon case comment
sent out to appellant
by Full Court that they assumed bank statements
from time to time and accused should know state of his account. Your Honour asked to draw inference that these accounts are 14 and presumably bank statements were sent from time to time and he must have been aware persons had sent money out on his behalf. That does not satisfy section 43. If under section 43 no one can be convicted on evidence of only 1/ a fortiori, no one can be convicted on evidence of no witness. Complete failure of proof in relation to that
witness
charge. Possible ambiguity. (Exh. P2).
If statement is ambiguous or irrelevant - which of several meanings assigned to it.
Nothing in the notice
If it is not in
Charge is misconceived
Again perjury may not be assigned to it. which says are you aware of any such transaction? direct answer to question it cannot be material. and must totally fail. In relation to that 2nd charge no document should be admitted in support of it as being in breach of principle of self incrimination. (b) Not statutory declaration or that defendant signed it. (c) No witness as to its falsity and no number of inferences can prove that (d) wording is ambiguous (e) In any event not being in
418