TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 383

369.

392

3:2

670

671

612

-

and

by the defence agreement for the purpose of saving the Court's time, and it may well have led my learned friend to the assumption that it was permissible to deal with the aspect of admissibility in this way. If one examines the situation had there been no such agreement one can see that it is a wrong approach and unfair to the defence. For this reason no agreement what would have happened witness would have said "I am officer of Hang Seng Bank I produce a bank draft dated

in the

slu of ....

payable to such and such an account". The defence would have objected the Court would have heard argument and would have ruled there and then on the question of admissibility. That ruling might have been in favour of the Crown might have been in favour of the defence. No one speculate but what we can be sure argument and ruling would have been based on evidence when the witness would have said I produce either I or ir. Gunston would have popped to his feet and said I object". Assuming Court's ruling had been in favour of Defence witness would then have gone to next draft and said "I produce". Again defence would have objected and again the argument would have taken place there and then. Much talk recently in relation to events in the Far East about the domiho theory. This seems to me to be an exact example of the domino theory. We envisage drafts as a line of domina s set up, the first one ruled out and knocks out the next one down to the end of the line. That is not the way ask, you tọ approach it. The Crown as it were are laying out their domino es winning pattern and ask you to draw inferences from a sequence of provisional exhibits by dates and amounts. This is in my respectful submission wrong approach and admissibility of each draft should be

its approached on/own without relation to assistance which can be found from other provisional exhibits which stand close to it in time or by virtue of amount or by virtue of being purchased the same day as well as draft to an identified account. Again after a lengthy digression I come back to sub-section 2 of section 22 my learned friend refers to totality of the evidence in reality he refers to the body of the drafts as a whole. "For the purposes of deciding etc.... Court may draw any inferences...etc." Does not say Court can then draw inferencés from disputed document or some other disputed document or permutation of dates and amounts. Approach must be adopted as a fair approach and approach must be as predicated in section 22(2) - each document should be taken on its own in the light of any other

-

in a