417
659
394.
Herrick v. kibuffi- Smith and Hogon - Criminal Law 128, 129 - These propositions
Agreement in Criminal conspiracy Part II Criminal Law Leview 1974 page 336, 337, knowledge of other parties. Meyrick and Hammersley discussed.
You should reject that so-called direct evidence of Lau and Chens even if circumstantial evidence is accepted and inferences drawn from it which Crown invite you to draw.Evidence still falls far short required for conviction direct and circumstantial evidence what you have is a minimum of 3 conspiracies together with innumerable permutations of common design and possibly as many conspiracies as there are individuals named in the charge.
-
Court adjourned 10 minutes.
Court resumes 4.07
(sd.)
A. Garcia
District Judge
11/12/75
660
Mr. Hampton:
2nd charge: Allegation of making a false statutory declaration contrary to section 35 of Crimes Ordinance.
In relation to that charge statutory declaration or alleged statutory declaration was not admissible. Under section 14 of the Prevention of Bribery Crdinance Commissioner may serve a notice on a suspect requiring him to answer various matters such answers being inter alia in the form of a statutory declaration and penalties are laid down under section 14(4) and 14(5). Section 14(4) penalty provided for neglect or failure to comply with notice and 14(5) penalty provided for wilful false statements in answer to such notice. Under section 20 of same Ordinance declarations or statements made in answer to such a notice
are admissible in evidence in relation to offences under the Ordinance. This is a dimunition by statute of the Common Law privilege against self incrimination. Answers to notices under section 14 cannot be admissible in relation to charges laid under any law or Common Law with the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.