205
297
182.
Mr. Gunston through Court:
Is it correct that entries after 20th in these forms left blank because all the stalls stopped operating?
4.
No.
Witness discharged.
Court adjourned to 10 a.m. 19/11/75
(Sd.) A. Garcia District Judge 18/11/75
298
299
19th November 1975
A.
Coram: Garcia, D.J. in Court.
Court resumes at 10 a.m.
Appearances as before.
Mr. Hampton: lly friend and I have applied to recall witnesses although this has not been expressed. Approval in principle of Court and consent in principle have already been given. What is new to issue is time of these recalls. My learned friend is applying that Defence should do so now. Defence point of view is that this should be postponed until after first ten witnesses is in. From no fault of defence nor that we forgot to put defence recall is due to defective indictment. Hardly seems appropriate or gracious coming from them that an endeavour should be made to have Your Honour's discretion exercised against the defence. As I understand it, it is purely discretionary well laid down, that discretion must be exercised judicially, and judicially
means reasonable. Reason for this is fault or defective indictment
but nevertheless exercise discretion in our favour. Defence on other
hand have not sprung some application for recall on prosecution as a surprise. Well known since motion to quash that this application would be made. It is as yet
not specific in relation to
individual as far as defence are concerned. No intention to place prosecution in any difficult position in arranging attendance of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.