TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 9

as

杰

bank accour

as chap's

City's Police Force and that for a period in 1955 his salary was mid

to an account at a lanchester bank. Thote events, however, are too

remote to assist the Crom.

What is of more significance is that

the first five bank drafts purch:sed on behalf of the first appellant

during the period under review wore for the credit of C.J.N. Cunningham

at the Old Dafford Branch of Barclays Bank Limited. That is the

fact to which the documents themselves attest and does not depend upon

the Reply to the s.14 Novice. The 1rned judge found as a fact that the C. Cunningham" ther; referred to was the same C.J.ii. Cunningham

whose passport uns for the court, that is the first appellant.

five drafts wor, all dated July 1971.

all dated July 1971. Thereafter numerous drafts were

sent to the same bank by reference to an account number and without

the name "C.J.. Cunningham" appearing thereon. There were interruptions

sometimes of several months' duration, when the drafts were sent to the National Westminster Bank et Bakewell and less frequently drafts vere paid into Mrs. Cunningha's Barclays Bank account at Loods. drafts were, on the cvidence, purchased with monies omanating from bank accounts maintained by various witnesses which accounts were

fed from the monies received from collectors. It would, we consider, be fanciful in the extreme to imagine that these English accounts were not accounts either owned by the first appellant or over which he exercised control and there was amplo evidence upon which the learned judge could come to th t conclucion without reference to the Reply

The

to the s.14 Notice. At the same tine similar considerations must apply to the fourtoun rittances totalling £5,800 sent by or on behalf of the second appellent to numbered accounts in a bank in Winchester.

If, however, that be wrong and if we erc also wrong in considering that the evidence of Inu and Chengas sufficient to justify the convictions, to are completely satisfied that there has been no miscarriage of justice and accordingly we would, if necessary, apply the proviso to s.85(1) of the Crinin 1 Procedure Ordinance to the action of th: trial judge in ditting for the purpos of the conspiracy chao, the information as to the bank accounts contained in the Replies to the 5.14 loticos.

The eppools are dismissed.

Scriven r, J. and F. Cher (Hampton Winter & Glynn) for appellants. Solots & Adams, .C, for rendcnt.