I am not a lawyer so I cannot understand what's wrong with the learned judge reproducing large chunks of the prosecution’s submissions in his written grounds of decision.
Isnt this the same as stare decisis or use of precedents in court decision for deciding subsequent cases involving similar facts or issues.
If the judge agrees with the DPP , why is there a need to change the wordings esp when the "ang mo" already pleaded guilty to one charge and agreed for the second to be taken into consideration.
Is it any different from the use of quotations, references and citations?