TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 137

127.

146

208

209

Mr. Hampton: Ir. Sceats has said common purpose is criminality

of money which they shared and degree to which D1 & D2 gave at least

their tacit support. I have never known of a more startling proposition. All I can say my learned friend has in no way

endeavoured to answer my objection. In addition my learned friend has said that (1) conspiracy was to protect illegal establishments (2) conspiracy on part of D1 and D2 as to share in the money by giving tacit support and (3) the conspiracy on the part of D1 and D2 was that they failed in their duty in being aware that certain co-conspirators also police officers could not legally have been in possession of such large sums of money and

they D1 and D2 should have taken direct action against them. There is only one word, inescapable, conclusion to be drawn from that and that is it is intention of Crown to prosecute a charge which is duplicitous but triplicitous if there is such a word

and I move to quash the charge.

at least 2 different

Mr. Gunston: Counsel of Crown has implied

conspiracies and possibly 3. Even if there are 2 conspiracies alleged connections between Ma Hak Shing and this witness are still

not admissible.

Court: I think the matters referred to by Mr. Sceats and described as duplicitous or triplicitous are part of the same transaction and

there is evidence, even without the evidence nou objected to and previously objected to as being inadmissible, to show a connection between the 2 defendants and the co-conspirators named in the charge now before this Court. Whilst I agree that the evidence of what Ma Hak Shing told or instructed this witness and of other witnesses would only be admissible if there is evidence of transactions in furtherance of a common design, I think this has been satisfied. Accordingly the objection is overruled.

Court: Motion for quashing indictment also overruled.