CONFIDENTIAL
5
dating from 1962. Consideration might also have to be given to payment of compensation for injustice. In short, CHU was either wrongly dismissed or not. If he was, then this fact should be admitted and his name should be cleared. If he was not, there are no grounds for mitigating the results of dismissal. I remain of the view, for the reasons set out above that the decision not to allow the petition in 1965 was the right one and that there is no justification for the ex-gratia pension proposed.
16.
It may be helpful if I summarise the reasons I have for my strongly held view that, whatever defects there may have been in the original proceedings, the se have not resulted in an injustice which requires to be put right, and that we should be paying too high a price for a gesture of clemency. These are as follows :
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
CONFIDENTIAL
At all times CHU was treated fairly and given every opportunity to defend himself and make representations;
his long delay in petitioning me, and then raising the matter with the Minister in England, is quite inconsistent with the action of an innocent man who has been framed; and likewise the complete silence on the part of his fellow senior N.C.Os in the Force cannot be explained on any basis other than that none of them thought that he had been framed;
this was not a case where on the facts found at the enquiry no reasonable man could have reached a conclusion of guilt, and indeed it has been our feeling that had the inconsistencies in the evidence been put to the investigating officer he could have remedied the matter at the time;
in a criminal case an Appellate Court properly intervenes where it considers that the Trial Court failed either fully to appreciate the grounds giving rise to a reasonable doubt, or else unreasonably failed to give effect to such reasonable doubt;