97499 5
LAST
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
No.
Registry B 14/17
22
DRAFT LETTER
Type 1 +
To:-
From
Top Secret. Secret. Confidential.
Restricted. Unclassified.
H.E. Sir David Trench,
KCMG., MC.,
Hong Kong.
Mr. H. Hall
Telephone No. & Ext.
Department
(21)
although the preading officer's decision could not to suppated on the evidenc called before him,
As requested in your telegram No.259, legal advisers (McPetrie and Grattan-Bellew)
had a talk with Sneath about the case of
Sergeant Chu Leung. Huijsman (0.D.M.) and Carter were present.
Sneath said that, although the disciplinary proceedings were defective in that the presiding officer failed to spot the serious discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses and therefore took
no steps to clear them up, he felt confident that, if the proceedings had been vetted by the law officers before the Commissioner of Police took his decision (as is now the practice) and the enquiries reopened on this score, the
guilt of the Sergeant would have been
abundantly proved. To our objections that further enquiries might as easily have established the reverse, he countered with other considerations tending to establish
guilt :-
(a) The Sergeant's silence between
dismissal in 1962 and his first
representations to you in 1965.
(15)
21
25
(b)
The fact that beia considered as
traiter by his colleagues in the
force whe gave him no support at all and did not vetition amount the dominan
against
He went on to explain your difficulties in following the course suggested in my letter of 11 December which, he said, would be
regarded in Hong Kong as tantamount to an admission that the original decision of dismissal was wrong. This, he thought, would have a
most unfortunate effect on the Police Force
and on Special Branch in particular who were convinced of Chu's guilt. The decision to award an ex-gratia pension must become public
knowledge and would inevitably be noted in
/ China