PETITION
To Sir Murray MacLehose, His Excellency
The Governor of Hong Kong, and
All Official & Unofficial Members of the Executive & Legislative Councils of Hong Kong.
Re: Files EBCR L/M(A) 26/73 of the Colonial Secretariat,
Hong Kong. Government.
Case VCC 241/74 of the Victoria District Court, Hong Kong. (Trial Judge His Honour B. L. Jones)
Preliminary
Three of the five Tin Sin Kuk swindlers directly involved in the above case were arrested in surprise pre-dawn raids on 1st Oct. 1974 with high-ranking ICAC and police officers working round the clock after months of vigorous secret investigations. The swindlers were charged with four offences of conspiracy and theft against the Petitioner. When they appeared in Central Court during preliminary hearing, the swindlers were, quite incidentally, recognised by two other victims to their swindles who were in the court room. These two victims reported to the police inspector prosecuting the above case, and, as a result, two additional charges of conspiracy etc. were subsequently preferred against the three swindlers. Likewise, the Commissioner of Police offered a HK$5,000. 00 reward for information enabling the police to locate the whereabouts of two other swindlers who were not yet in custody.
The trial took place before Judge Jones in the Victoria District Court from 1st April to 14th April 1975; the defendants were convicted of four (4) counts of conspiracy and theft against the Petitioner; they were each sentenced to four years' jail and ordered to make restitution to the Petitioner.
An appeal was lodged by the convicted swindlers and was heard by a 3-men panel in the High Court of Hong Kong on 24th and 25th July 1975. On 8th Sept. 1975, an overdue "verdict" was pronounced by a 2-men panel setting aside the convictions against the three swindlers on the fallacious argument that "Senior Police Superintendent J. P. Mac- Mahon was not qualified to give evidence on Tin Sin Kuk swindles and they(i.e. judicial officers on the bench) could not say whether or not the Trial Judge would have convicted the appellants if Senior Police Superintendent J.P. MacMahon did not give evidence".
It goes without saying that justice did not take its proper course in that notorious criminals who had committed a series of offences were set free and that the purposes of Crown laws have been defeated by dirty tricks.
Grounds for the Petition
1. The Petitioner is a British subject and a resident of Hong Kong; he is protected by
Crown laws and is entitled to the rights, previleges and remedies afforded by the same. 2. Tin Sin Kuk swindle rackets in Hong Kong, including the Yuen Foong Lung(
racket to which the Petitioner fell a victim, are under illegal "protection" by certain. Chinese C.I.D. officers of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, in return for a 30% of the proceeds of swindles. Such protection racketeering was understood to have been organized by detective inspector
2, formerly of G.1.D. Headquarters,
9(1), formerly of
Hong Kong Island District, and detective inspector C.I.D. Headquarters, Kowloon District, who had quit the police force after this and similar cases of syndicated corruption were brought to the attention of the authorities. 3. The Petitioner is affected by the decision to uphold the swindlers' appeal in that he
was entitled to repayment of the sum of HK$228,000.00 from the criminals in question under a court order made by Judge Jones in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 72 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Hong Kong, if the convictions against the swindlers were not set aside.
4. The "verdict" as aforesaid not only has done the Petitioner gross injustice, but also
has frustrated the efforts of law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong in fighting crimes and protecting the public.
5. The "verdict" as aforesaid has the added effect of absolving other law-breakers who
are being sought by police in connection with the above case from criminal prosecution. 6. The case for the Crown was convincingly proved; the evidencesgiven by all Crown
witnesses were perfect; the quantity of exhibits produced was more than sufficient, exceeding those submitted during trials of similar offences over the years.