A DEFENCE barrister did not discover the charge faced by his client had been changed until the 25th day of trial, the Court of Appeal heard yesterday. Ben Beaumont said he was taken completely by surprise when the blunder was discovered. He was so stunned he could not give the original trial judge detailed reasons why he felt his client, businessman Tse Yu, had been prejudiced. The particulars of the complex commercial fraud plot charge had been altered before the trial began but Mr Beaumont was not informed, the court heard. The new charge was read out at the start of the District Court trial, but Mr Beaumont did not pick up on the problem because it was read out only in Chinese. Mr Justice Mayo said: 'The real mischief is a short cut that was taken by not having the charge read out in English and translated into Chinese.' Tse, 38, was later found guilty by Deputy Judge Davies. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in March last year but has been on bail awaiting the outcome of the appeal. Philip Dykes, representing Tse in the appeal, said that the words which were added to the conspiracy to defraud charge introduced an allegation that Tse had put money into his personal bank accounts. If Mr Beaumont had known this at the start of the case he would have conducted Tse's defence in a different way, the appeal court heard. Mr Beaumont, who only discovered the discrepancy by chance when embarking on his final submissions, urged the trial judge to order that two prime prosecution witnesses be recalled. He said he wanted to cross-examine the witnesses on matters arising from the amendment to the charge, but they had returned to Taiwan. Deputy Judge Davies rejected his application and ordered the trial should continue. Mr Dykes argued the trial was invalid because the way in which the charge had been amended breached regulations. The amendment took place at an earlier hearing, when Tse was represented by a different lawyer. Mr Beaumont was not the only defence counsel who was not aware of the change. Another barrister, representing a defendant who was cleared, was not informed either, the appeal court heard. Both lawyers were appointed by the Legal Aid Department. Mr Justice Ching said that he understood how Mr Beaumont could have been so outraged at what had happened that he could not give the judge particulars relating to the prejudice he believed had been caused to the defendant. The judge said that, on occasions, he had also lost his temper and been shocked by unexpected events in court. Chief Justice Sir Ti Liang Yang, Mr Justice Ching and Mr Justice Mayo dismissed the appeal against conviction. Their reasons will be given at a later date. Tse was taken to the cells to begin serving his jail sentence.