}
}
Reference......
But this is itself offence under The Pol. Ord, and in the cires
On
V. Serious one.
Sobably not an offence
ffence, withe cere umetanas
affB
3.
be dangerous to accept without corroboration. Not very satisfactory.
(iv) The Committee of Enquiry in the matter of
the citizenship of Chu Leung in paragraph 10 of their report (E/X LEG 6606) demonstrate that the evidence of Hon as 'regards the information which Hon alleged Chu Leung had passed on to him was untrue.
(v)
(vi)
+
The fact that Chu Leung, had denied to his superior officers that he knew Mr. X, was taken as raising strong suspicion as to what his relationship was with Mr. X and this may, I think, to some extent, have prejudiced' Chu Leung's position. But Chu Leung's denial can, I think, be attributed to
motives other than hiding an improper relationship with Mr. X. Chu Leung must have known that his superior officers were investigating an allegation that he had been giving information to K.M.T.' Agents and although innocent. he may well have thought that to admit acquaintanceśhip with Mr. X would prejudice his case.
The first two charges,in which Chu Leung was found guilty by the Assistant Commissioner, allege that Chu Leung, in the course of duty, made a statement which was false. The statements alleged to be false were statements which, as I understand, Chu Leung made to a superior officer during an investigation into allegations made against Chu Leung, and in my view, statements made in such circum- stances cannot be said to be made in the course of the duty of a Police Officer. Consequently, regardless of whether the statements made by Chu Leung were true or false he should not have been convicted upon these two charges.
For the reasons given above,I agree with the report on the Committee of Enquiry into the matter of Chu Leung's citizenship and with the doubts expressed by one of the Hong Kong Law Officers at the beginning of 1963.
4. In my view Chu Leung should not have been found guilty of the charges on which the Assistant Commission- er found him guilty and that the proper course now would be, as there can be no question of reinstatement. apart from other considerations because of his age,to grant an ex gratia pension of the amount that he would have received by way of pension if he had retired at the date of his dismissal in 1962. Payment probably would have to be made with effect from that date in 1962.
affretten. Beller
Sir A. Grattan Bellew
October, 1967