TNAG-0682-FCO40-831-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 93

8

obtain their corrupt funds from thone persons who we describ.d as owners and operators of rice establis morts collectively, but that (sic) poch of thoa individuelly 'protected' a Superato group of owners or operators, but the ridence of the 'collectors' of corrunt funds that in, 215, 7, 8, 9 and 13; indicate otherise."

The evidence of the "ollectors" to which refer ncc is there ande is evidence that two of the station arguants successively succeeded to the "pusin ss" of the first. From that it is clear that the

sergeants were pay to the conspiracy alleged and that is enough.

We have said dore than sufficient to indicate that the

appeals must be dismissed but for the sake of completeness wo mention Mr. Scrivener's points regarding certain of the documentary evidence. Mr. Sceats, for the Crown concedes that in rusthing his finding as to what bank accounts were maintained by the first appellant in the United Kingdom the judge relied upon the first opellent's Reply to the s.14 Notice served upon him and that the judge should not have had regard to this Reply, which roleted to the second charge against the first appellant, in respect of the conspiracy charge.

It is lib.. Scrivener's further contention that certain other documents relating to th. .. bank accounts of both appcllants should not have been admirtié es evidence of the truth of their contents. is express no concluded opinion upon that but the question remains whether, ignoring those documents, there was evidence upon which the trial judze could have found that the bank accounts in question were in fact th: accoumis of rospective appellants or accounts over which they wxercised control.

In rogand to the first appellant the "ccounts in question were one at Barclays Bank Limited, Old Trafford, Manchester and onc -t the National Hustuinster Bank Limited at Bakewell in Derbyshire.. Additionally theri was an account in the name of the wife of th first annellant t Barclay Bank: Limited, 37, Park Ro A, Leeds. There is evidence of regler payments into these accounts by means of bin: rafts during the period charged. Such payments total sore the £103,000 and the bank drafts were purchased with monies in the illicit bank accounts into which the protection" monies were prid. That the first appellant had a conn ction with Manchester is clear from the fact that at one tim. he served as a member of th ́t