B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
S.C. 224
- 451 -
FSC/28/13
10% in Xinese and in that statement there is a mention of the nous tai Kau-vah and Tai la lim (the same names as contioned by OMG I Sibit A. 1(2).
Before starting his cross-examination, Ir. Reid for the Cacım informed the court that this witness had been granted immunity fr presccution in respect of perjury committed before lir. Justice MANG at the Coumission of Inquiry and that he had been granted immity fron criminal prosecution and disciplinary offences in rospect of a statement made by this witness on the 3rd June, 1976 to senior Inspector MG Man-luen and that he had been grouted immit fron police disciplinary proceedings relating to a state- ment made by this witness to Senior Superintendent Heliven on the 23rd Mar, 1974, Crow commsel said that no immunity had been ranted to this vitness in respect of this trial. r. Reid for the Crowm said he had not called this vitness because he felt tha this vitness could not be relied on as a witness of the truth.
*
The witness admitted that he made a statement to Superintendent Leliver in May, 1974 and that he realised that at that time the police were conducting enquiries regarding police misconduct in the cir- cunstances arounding 200G Ving-sang's arrest and LUNG Wing-sang's - Lovenonts after his arrest. This witness admitted that prior to making the statement to Senior Superintendent lcvan he received instructions from the Ad accused as to what to say and what not to say. He sail tile Pad accused told him not to mention such incidents as having tea and the incident of going to the bathhouse because no persons vone located in those places. The witness agreed that he covered up those incidents when he made a statement to Superintendent oliven and be admitted that those incidents represented police misconduct or to use his own words that they were not very proper. The witness dent that prior to his giving evidence to the Commission of Inquiry be discussed with the 2nd accused the ovidence he was going to give or that is received any instructions prior to his giving evidence bofor: the Commission of Enquiry, lo agreed that when he gave ovidence before the axission of Enquiry he did not give any evi- dence relating to the visit to the bathhouse, the visit to the Nathan bstaurant end the Harbour Hotel. He said he doliberately refrained, frs: disclosing those matters to the Commission of Inquiry because he felt he had to stick to the facts in the statement ho gave to Senior Juperintendent Kelliven.
The witness agreed that he made a statement to Senior Inspector HG au-luen on the 3rd June, 1976. He was asked whether it was only on one occasion that IMUNG vas telton out of the police station: for meals and he replied at least one occasion".
He vas aslıd thether there were any other occasions and he replied, I can't resorber clearly about this matter." After: mich cross- exerination the vitness agreed that he had made the Chinese statement
hibit D. 2 to Senior Inspector NG and that he had read the state tent before signing it and that he did not request any alterations befce he signed it as being completely correct". 1n paragraph five of that statement he stated, inter alia, that he had taken LUNG to the Harbour Hot-l to have breakfast, Junch or dinner and that possibly, the real expenses vere paid by him but that the 2nd accused ralunded bi later. lle stated that on the night of the 3rd and
I
F
H
K
M
N
0
Р
Q
R
S
T
U