7-7
17
ignorance of the law. LEUNG was prepared to abide by
his agreement, no doubt encouraged by the opinion of LAW Ming-tok and LIU Choong-wah (which he and his parents accepted) that a conviction for murder was highly un-
likely. It was not until his appeal was dismissed that
he fully realized the seriousness of the situation.
Still, as a loyal member of the 14K, he would not disclose
the agreement. His mother, at last discovering that
the assurances of LAW and LAU were incorrect, went to the
UMELCO Office, mainly to try and save her son, but also,
to use her daughter-in-law's words, "Because the family
thought it unfair that LEUNG Wing-sang only had been
arrested in this case. R It was at a much later stage
that LEUNG and his friends came to realise that the only
hope for LEUNG lay in a disclosure of the agreement.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration, and more
particularly for the reasons stated below, the Commission's
conclusion is that the agreement and the payment of $10,000 by LAW to LEUNG through LAU, in no way prejudiced IZUNG's trial. Firstly, the agreement never included a
confession by LEUNG, which he in any event did not make,
Secondly, it was within the comtemplation of all parties
to the agreement that LEUNG was to defend himself with a
view to securing an acquittal. Indeed, the conduct of
the defence throughout the proceedings supports this view. Thirdly, LEUNG's cautioned statement and statements in answer to the charges must have been disregarded by th jury. Fourthly, even if the agreement had been disclosed
to the jury at the trial, having regard to the evidence
of the three employees at the Cactus Apartment House, it
is highly unlikely that the verdicts would have been
different.
8
}
1
8. Acknowledgements
It is appropriate to place on record the appreciation
of the Commission for the assistance rendered by