Thereafter the police file vas submitted
to the Attorney General's Chambers for consideration. The departures in Mr. CHIAN'S statement from the known facts were particularly drawn to the attention of the Crown Counsel who dealt with the matter and the question was raised whether a better course in all the circum- stances might be to consider calling Mr. CHAN as a vitness for the Crown if others vere arrested. In short, the police doubted whether the case should proceed on the strength of Mr. CHAN's statement alone. However, the Crows Counsel considered, in view of the serionsneas of the offence, that it should go forward notwithstanding that Hr. CHAN's statement was the only evidence of his involvement. The CrownŁ Counsel considered that prima facie the statement was in order and that, if anything, the discrepancies tended to dispel any suggestion that it was not voluntary or that its contents had been dictated to Kr. CHÂN by the police. Committal proceedings then took place and Mr. CHAN was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.
When the depositions were received, the case was then again considered in the Attorney General's Chambers to decide whether an indictment should be filed. The Crown Counsel who had originally advised the police maintained his view that the case should go forward and so recommended to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As a matter of procedure in the Attorney General's Chambers, an indictment for murder is generally not filed in a case where the only evidence of an accused's involvement is his own statement to the police mless the case has been considered personally by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. Accordingly, the Director of Public Prosecutions submitted the case to the Law Officers. In a carefully considered minute to them, he proposed that the case should go forvard and the Solicitor General agreed that it should.
/Until