R. v Michael Li Chun Tat And Another

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCC12/1972
Judgment Date:03 May 1972
DCCC000012/1972 R. v. MICHAEL LI CHUN TAT AND ANOTHER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

CASE NO. 12 OF 1972

_________________

R. v.

(1) Michael LI Chun-tat

(2) YEUNG Shu-yung

_________________

Coram: Mr. Commissioner Derek Cons.

Date: 3rd May, 1972.

___________________________________________________

RULING AS TO SEPARATE TRIAL OF COUNTS
IN SAME INDICTMENT

___________________________________________________

1. In this matter I have been greatly assisted by a very well prepared and well documented argument by Counsel for the Crown in support of the indictment as it now stands. Some objections have been taken to the wording of the first count, but I do not think it necessary for me to say more in this respect at the moment, except to comment that although the statement of offence does not accord exactly with the precedent given in Archbold, the particulars set out subsequent to that statement make it quite clear that the conspiracy alleged is a conspiracy to commit crime, namely, to contravene the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

2. The primary matter raised today is that of whether the first count of conspiracy should be tried separately on its own or together with the other twenty substantive charges. I also queried myself whether apart from this the number of the substantive charges alone would make for an oppressive trial, but on consideration and bearing in mind their inter-relation and the manner in which they form a consecutive history I do not think this can be said, or that a reduction in their number would materially shorten the trial or reduce the basic evidential issues before the Jury.

3. Many cases have criticized the trial of a charge of conspiracy at the same time as the substantive charges on which it is based. The specific reasons given appear principally to be that this course has a tendency to lengthen or to complicate the issues, or to allow into the trial evidence which is admissible only on the conspiracy charge and not on the substantive charges. It is submitted that none of these dangers can arise in this present case. It is of course difficult at this stage to know how certain of the matters that appear in the depositions will come out in the evidence, or whether even any attempt will be made to introduce them, but a not insubstantial portion of the file that is before me concerns the...

To continue reading

Request your trial