98
PART V PERSONS INVOLVED
at
arranged for the afternoon, he attended it. He understood the gist of the proceed. ings to be that a mass meeting was to be held in the Government Stadium 7.30 p.m. on 23rd April, and in the meantime no further demonstrations were to be staged. After the meeting he went to the Rediffusion studio, at the suggestion of SO Sau Chung and RAGGENSACK, he said, to watch films of the demonstrations that had taken place in the early morning of 6th April. He was excited at the sight of these pictures, but told us that he did not want to take part in any further demonstrations and that he simply crossed the harbour by the Sham Shui Po Ferry and went straight home to bed, whilst his co-tenant with whom he had spent the day, did the same, he said, but by another route. We think little credence can be given to this part of his testimony as to his later action or lack of it.
356. He agreed he was arrested on 10th April. He was convicted of incite ment to riot and damage to property, private car No. AE 8558, on the evening of 6/7th April. He pleaded guilty in court and admitted the facts alleged but made a short statement in mitigation; pleading his youth and the impulsive nature of his action, adding that having served previously in the Prisons Department he feared there would be fights in prison if he went there.
357. He received concurrent sentences of two years from the magistrate for inciting to riot and malicious damage to property; but he neither appealed not applied for a review although, before us, he made allegations about being promised a lenient sentence if he pleaded guilty and about being beaten; allegations which, when he was more fully questioned, appeared far from convincing.
358. Some of the other prisoners who came before us from Chi Ma Wan, includ ing LO Kei, also alleged that they had been beaten by the Police. Indeed, LO Kei in one of his more lurid passages, spoke of RAGGENSACK being viciously beaten- although RAGGENSACK himself made no such allegation. The position of LO Kei was exceptional. The possible link between his allegation and Mrs. ELLIOTT'S allegation about a plot-unsubstantiated though the latter was-came sufficiently close to our terms of reference to render it desirable to probe his allegation with some thoroughness and we have dealt with it accordingly (paras. 311-317). The allegations by some other young men from Chi Ma Wan were in a different category.
359. Had there been any truth in these allegations, one would have expected them to be put forward when the individuals concerned were before the courts. In fact, in no case, either on remand or at their trials, had these youths made any such allegations. Even where there had been an application for review or appeal, with a legal representative appearing, no such suggestion had been put forward. Be that as it may, to determine the truth of an allegation about what happened after the riots, unless it could throw some light on what went before, could not advance the purpose of our Inquiry and does not, we believe, fall within our terms of reference. Consequently, we would not wish to give the impression that we pursued an inquiry into and determined the truth or falsity of these allegations.
W
al
W
=== 23 22
yo
CC
re
fr
el
U
0
e:
si
W
h
CI
P
th
li
tl
d
a
co
a
Ꮪ
ja
P
a
h
W
i
a
h
I
n
I