Was Holland arguing that the prosecutor was not the Minister or as to the identity of the Minister? Was he trying to argue that the Minister had no knowledge of the case? Surely the Court would have to confirm that the Minister's office was aware and not assume this?
Holland was really just arguing that no actual evidence of the Minister's identity and role had been brought forward (such as, perhaps, his commission from the Queen). It was a silly attempt to use a technicality. It didn't work :)
Saves the day once more :)
Thank you
You're welcome
Was Holland arguing that the prosecutor was not the Minister or as to the identity of the Minister? Was he trying to argue that the Minister had no knowledge of the case? Surely the Court would have to confirm that the Minister's office was aware and not assume this?
Holland was really just arguing that no actual evidence of the Minister's identity and role had been brought forward (such as, perhaps, his commission from the Queen). It was a silly attempt to use a technicality. It didn't work :)
@@AnthsLawSchool thanks. Enjoying your case notes.