619
396
373.
name Crown assert that these are admissible.
Coincidence in name is
No such additional evidence here
duy's try in relation to lectoral
in itself totally inadequate. Again in sturgeon case one cannot but help reflect upon the reasons and painstaking care Liu J categorised the additional corroborative evidence which existed in relation to drafts which bore the name "R. Sturgeon'. with the possible exception of r. Register of Borough of Stratford
foundation for the house of cards erected by the Prosecution. Lastly the suggestion that Barclays Bank A/C 80292192 is that of rs. havis Cunningham. Io doubt at long last this unveils for us the Crown's mysterious action in adding her as a co-conspirator. Presumably Crown
and tele hone directory, a fitting
telephone
say that because this is her account you must assume that any remittances made to it were her husband's money. In 1975 proposit.on such as this would have put women libbers up in arms. Crown says because you assume it is the husband's money you must therefore assume that she was assisting him in hiding it or holding it and that therefore this was a co-conspirator. Not a shred of authority for such a proposition. There are few members of the legal profession here who can forget their indination at grotesque amendment to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance
to the effect that because of absence of relationship between wives, fathers, mothers, to an accused person money is held by them or held on behalf of તુ s.10 suspect. Fact is that such an amendment requires to be passed fully bears out no such assumption can be made without intervention of legislature. Such intervention applies only to charges laid only under 3.10 of Frevention of Bribery Ordinance and not to Common Law
offences.
Court adjourned 15 minutes.
(sa.)
A. Garcia
District Judge
8/12/75
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.