:
-3-
in the charg: vas transferred to the Bay View Division, the instruction to ronit money monthly was transferred to CHIU Tak who,
upon the occasion of such remittances, would inform Leu thereof and
request him to tell the first appellant that the remittence had been
made. When ventually CHIU Tak ws transferred and his post takon
over by MA Hak-shing, the third need station sergeant, remittances
were handled by MA Hak-shing. According to Lau the $40,000 p.m. was
actually paid to the first appellant by CHIU Tak and later by
NA Hak-shing and some $20,000 of this was contributed by Lau from his
own area of the Division of Shaukiwan. This continued, to Lau's
knowledge, until November 1972 when Lau was transferred to another
Division.
Lau's evidence in regard to the second appellant was to the effect that when the lattor was first transferred to the Bay View Division as Ascistant Divisional Superintendent in June 1971 (one month before the first date charged in the conspiracy charge) ho vent
to see the second appellant and asked him whether he was interested
in extra inconc. The second appellant asked how much" and was offered $10,000 per month which he accepted upon the same condition in regard to not raiding the stalls under Lau's protection. At the end of June 1971 $10,000 ves accordingly paid to the second appellant and later, when CHIU Tak was transferred to the Division, Lau took him to see the second appellant who agreed that C (IU Tak should continue the arrangement. Subsequently there was additional evidence that the payments to the two appollants continued during the period charged.
Predictably the evidence of both Lau and Chengwas attacked. Both were accomplices and although Lau had been sentenced to a term of one year's imprisonment in respect of a charge under s.10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), both had been offered amnesty in regard to any further possible nroceedings against either arising from these transactions. It was alleged by fir. Scrivener that the trial judge did not weigh the question whether the amn sty was a strong inducement to these two witnesses to give untruthful evidence along the lines which the Crown wished to hear. This is not an argua nt which can carry any weight. Unhappily, the spate of corruption trials which has been a feature of the work of the District Courts in Hong Kong during the past two years or so has led