- E3li
PL/30/7.
A
E
E
F
G
K
L
M
N
0
xh.D.20.
al time. The Headquarters Order 59/69 (Exhibit D.20) produced by Mr. Wright- ooth indicates that the défendant had been posted to Headquarters with effect from the 6th of October, 1969. This witness said that that would indicate the defendant was actually in his post at that date. I have no reason to believe that that is not true. Indeed, if my understanding farof police hieroglyphics is correct, the posting notice indicates that
the defendant had, prior to that date, held a post in Kowloon. At all va events, the evidence is that whoever received Mr. Wright-Hooth's
instruction, it cannot have been the defolant. Yet, it was Jupon this alleged connection between the defendant and the non-retention of of the Occurrence Book that the plaintiff depended in the main for this food particular allegation.
In
Lak të The second point at which it seemed possible to touch upon fact to support
A suspicion in the matter of tampering with evidence and relating that to the defendant was in connection with the original statement recorded by Hir. Hilkinson from the plaintiff on the 26th of December, 1968. dstaten ent in itself is not in controversy. It was put in evidence by E the plaintiff to establish the date on which it was made, it being his
contention that it had for a long time been withhold by the defodant at a time when the plaintiff was attempting to get copies of his documents and that eventually it had not been handed over to the Independent Commission Against Corruption when papers held by the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Police Force in connection with his corruption complaint were transferred there for further investigation. Other correspondence produced in evidence seemed to show that the fendant had indeed called for the plaintiff's original statements to be shown to him. This was on the 10th of Decmber, 1969. The original Wilkinson statement vas News Osent to him by an officer in the Anti-Cormption Branch on the 15th of
YADecember with a request that it be returned in due course. It was for this
reason that I permitted one of the officers of the Independent Commission to give evidace on this subject of confidential files in the custody of the Commission, because, if it were established that the Wilkinson document had never been handed over despite requests to that effect, that might ́hove' afforded some circumstantial ground for suspecting that it had been
deliberately withheld. In the event, Mr. Clarke of the Independent Commission, who admitted that he had ever seen the document (Exhibit P.13) before, was able to show from a file currently held by the Commission that a true copy of P.13 was on that file, and, furthermore, that the original had been passed over to the Commission for scrutiny and returned.
Exh.P.13.
Q
S
xh.D.3.
*
L
I have gone in some detail into these two points because they fairly illustrate the weakness of the grounds on which the plaintiff was prepared to make confident assertions ascribing conduct of extreme depravity to the defendant and other persons.
The allegations as to forgery of documents rest upon rounds which are less substantial still. Thus, as to the examination marks register (D.3),. he asserts that this is not the true register at all and that he saw quite a different register in the office of the Deputy Commandant M. CHENG in which he observed different and more favourable examination rks recorded for in TNG was called by the plaintiff and he. identified D.3 as the only such register kept for the examinti uns at the Police Training School. He further said that the marks shown were recorded at about the dates noted at the top of each column because it was his task to inspect the register at some time after each fortnightly test and to
C
E
F
G
H
K
L
M
N
0
R
S
ཎྞཾམས
5.C. 224
V