TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 146

155

225

226

136.

*

Mr. Sceats: Submit application totally devoid of erit. Summary of

evidence supplied and roles of witnesses who had given evidence in

Court was made plain in summary from time of swearing in first witness.

Immunity given to witnesses for evidence they were about to give to

Court shows clearly these witnesses were in fact in a position of

co-conspirators. In a conspiracy Crown can name persons and can aver

there are further persons who had taken part in conspiracy identity of whom Crown does not know. Crown is not bound to charge every

person or include every person it does know in conspiracy whilst

the identity of witnesses who had given evidence and who are yet

to come are knownL. No prejudice has flowed to defence by non-

disclosure of names of witnesses who had so far given evidence or

the omission of names of several witnesses whose identities are

known to defence.

Mr. Hampton: Very briefly in reply my learned friend has not answered

my submission at all with the exception of a proposition of law which

has been put forward, namely that the Crown is not obliged to name any

person who to the Crown's knowledge has been involved in the conspiracy.

This is new law to me. Indictment Rules are there to say what Crown

shall do and these rules require Crown to name co-conspirators who to the

Crown's knowledge have been involved.

He adds that defence has not

been prejudiced because fact that these persons were co-conspirators is

clear from the summary of evidence. This is just not so. Absolutely no hint ever given in the summary of evidence it was possible that witnesses in summary of evidence may have committed some offences but it is incorrect to say that there was any hint they were co-conspirators

in that summary.

It must have been clear to the defence when witnesses

Dere sworn in by the fact that my learned friend granted them immunity that they were co-conspirators. This is another of the startling statements which have cropped up in this trial. My learned friend Cannot plead ignorance of the part of defence to get particulars desperately. Audacious statement then in a trial involving matters of corruption that it is good enough by way of implication of blanket immunity. Desperate attempt to uncover what conspiracy was - no indication what it was. Cannot say that immunity covers Chan Sir.