7 Mar 1997
R. v. CHENG TSAN CHOW
- Citation
- R. v. CHENG TSAN CHOW
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC106/1996
Because s3 does not require proof of who provided the advantage, the particulars' identification of Mr Lui was not a material averment; the prosecution produced direct evidence of the transfer (cheque deposit and account statement) and corroborative witness evidence, and the applicant failed to show any prejudice from the misdescription, so the conviction was not unsafe.