experiment, the second syringe, and the visits to the
Solicitors. There you have a complete, coherent, self-
contained narrative of a separate and distinct crime.
The whole of that history has been thrown before the
jury and they were invited on it to find that the Accused
employed Lau.
There is no evidence to connect the Accused with "A" :
"A" in fact committed the murder, There is evidence to
connect the Accused with "B". The Crown case was that
because there was evidence that he was connected with "B"
the jury could infer that he was connected with "A".
The Crown is endeavouring
and it is a clear case
to establish complicity in one crime by evidence of
complicity in another crime.
It is difficult to imagine evidence more likely to
prejudice the Accused than the Zimmern and Christie
evidence.
The law is astute to rule out such evidence
unless it is relevant on some iɛsur.
Lindsell's opening
•
Transcript, p.9.
•
"I pass on to
the second part of the evidence of the Crown: " Such
evi de nce is irrelevant until it is shown that Lau is the
agent of the Accused.
The knife evidence is also irrelevant.
side may say 'What about the eases of threats".
were all cases of direct mirder.
The other
Those
To Woud, F.J. - This argument would be open to
me equally if the charge were one of direct murder.
Yung (aic) Face-slapping incident: All that secured wanted
was to slap Fung's face: Notes of evidence, p.97.
Lindsell's opening, p.16: - Until June the Zimɑern
and Christie evidence was the only evidence. That means
that at the Magistracy the Crown case was that the
correct inference from that Zimmern and Christie evidence
7