TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 403

650

651

389.

2

412

10 roof indeed there is proof to the contrary

+

-

I believe Exh.F7 this

a statutory declaration made by 1 or allegedly made by D1 sometime

-

in may I don't know why it was put in I objected to it it is not subject matter of 2nd or 3rd charge nor alleged to be false - prosecution put it in as being relevant its relevancy may be that the prosecution say it contains admission that accused possessed bank accounts in Manchester and in Bakewell. This may be reason for putting it in my learned friend has not enlightened us. any admission made by an accused person upon which prosecution rely or can rely must be taken by them as it stands as a whole including exculpatory as well as inculpatory matter. If I am right in that proposition that statutory declaration made on oath that these bank accounts are not those of 14 how can matters of speculation and guilt by association strid

up against such a direct denial. In the circumstances these drafts must be inadmissible or of no weight. Without them, the prosecution has no

Indeed in relation to these bank

case left at least as against D1. accounts their numbers I venture to say and assuming they were D1's bank accounts, but that no other evidence of any sort had emerged connecting D1 with this case my learned friend would have argued with the very same argument he has used association with sequence of drafts and he would have argued that all these drafts were 2's. In my submission what it boils down to is sheer speculation. Evidence called of existence of

illegal establishments and collection of money from then including the warning given of raids - my learned friend has the temerity to say none of this had been challenged by the Defence. My answer to that is that case took prosecution 9 or 10 months to prepare. When Defence apply for a reasonable adjournment of this trial the argument we were met with against that adjournment were "you are not concerned with the illegal establishments. It is linkage of 2 accused with them". Adjournment was objected to to bring this trial in indecent haste and to accommodate a convicted criminal. My learned friend touches on point of circumstantial evidence credibility of Cheng Cheuk Fun. This is the question of 2 cheques issued by D1 which found their way into

account

•

Cheng's bank

He says how did Cheng come into possession of these cheques I should have thought that was matter for the prosecution to cell evidence on Cheng does not know how he got the cheques. The normal reasonable inference to be drawn from issuing of a cheque for cash is that cash was obtained for them. hy should not D1 wanting cash issue