TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 352

361

338.

551

552

Bank.

K. v. Sturgeon.

Documents were records and need not be bound

in a book. Extensive argument on this matter. I appeared at the

appeal and Their Lordships did not wish me to address them on

Counsel's argument had to be a collection, etc.

Mr. Hampton: Document is objectionable in 3 respects: (1) the admission

of a copy or a record under section 22 only can be called in aid

where direct oral evidence would be admissible. for sake of analogy

if prosecution had rir. Lee wah who signed his application, he could

como along and say he himself purchased draft or fill up application form and identify his own signature on it but if he was purchasing tnat draft for account air vice Marshal Cunningham: it would not be

admissible because it is irrelevant.

(2) here is no evidence - Lee wah - that he might reasonably be

supposed to have personal knowledge of the information he

supplied. If it is part of the Crown's case and it would

seem from Crown's opening that it is the wing Lung application forms and drafts are on the same basis as the Hang Deng

(3)

(4)

ones, the evidence and inferences which the Court Craws

I believe without exception points to the situation where

that person has no personal knowledge Thatsoever. Question

of people who don't speak English being given a piece of

paper with a name and address written on it.

A completely insufficient ground work has been laid under sec. 22(1)(b).

Any ground laid under ss(1)(b) you can look at document.

s.s. 3 comes in. Throughout prosecution case are showing

therein is that all the criminals who did apply for the

drafts all used false names.

fir. Cun-ton: 1 have nothing to add to my friend's arguent.

Mr. Dcests: The 3 grounds - dealing with copy and not original of

each draft. Not calling maker of application. ..e have called

Matters necessary for us to invoke para

If we had been able to locate Lee wah he

a number of witnesses.

(6) of s.s.1 of sec. 22.

could have given oral evidence.

Mr. Hampton:

kely on sec. 22 of Evidence Ordinance.

in section 20 I feel extremely important point you

got to divorce application form from what subsequently happens to