-8-
12
"f
is not inextricably mixed up with" the Chuí conspiracy (p.400)
and it was not wanted to make the main story intelligible (P.400)
To Kemo C.J. I agree that it is not only when the evidence
of another crime omnot be omitted without making the org
unintelligible that the evidence is admissible. It would
be admissible if relevant to an issue, or if part of the
in
Λ
transaction issue. "Prior acts", p.400: the Zimmern and
Christie evidence was subsequent to the alleged exployment
complete by the 18th March.
grain
of Lau which was
Kemp C.J: In the
xxxxxxcase (p.400) how were the watchinge
inseparable parts of the larceny charged?
ons
Fot er: Re Hagan (p.401) is illustrative of the class of
case where menaces are admissible: "The relati of the
"murdered man......integral parts of the history of the
"crime...." (p.401); that is the test. Lvidence of another
offence may be admissible to negative mistake or accident,
or when the question of criminal intent is material.
act not enough to prove criminal intent (p.405), a fortiori,
how can you prove from a single act with Zimmern and Christi.
the agency of Lau.B *roving one crime in order to raise
presumption
that another crime had been committed by
Single
the perpetrator of the first (p.406): that is precisely
the case here. "Obvious that it was wanted for some
* •
"other purpose ...unless it is plainly necessary to prove
"something that is really in insue." (p.416). If there
were proof of agency such evidence would be inadmissible
on the above ground. "Nexus (p.424).
A nexus case is:
k. v. khodes; (1899) 1 K.B. at 82 and 83.
Unless you can admit the Zimmern and Christie evidence
on the grounds laid down by Aennedy, J., on pp.400 and 401 of
R. ▼ Bond, as laid down in 9 Halsbury, p.380 and 381, you