516
319.
342
infora o gecifically of what it is an alleged to have done that I should not answer any questions" ne was later admitted to bail from water-front Folice station. I saw rir. Thompson on one more occasion in the presence of his solicitor at 11.15 a.m. on saturday 15th August. I was accompanied on that occasion by hr. Carmel Chow Jun Lung. The purpose of going there was to ash a prepared question which I had taken with me for this purpose and I read the question from the paper to Mr. Thompson in the presence of his solicitor andwrote his reply on the cone piece of paper in his presence. (Document shown to itness). This is the prepared question I put to him. I produce the document. (EL. P97).
A.
A.
A.
ross-examined by Mr. Ham ton
•
A.
H
hat as the date you served sec. 14 notice on 017 4/5/75.
as this the first sec. 14 notice served on him?
10. I believe this was the 2nd one. I was not present when other one was served. I do not know the date when other one was served. Úther one was served before you served the one on 2/51
I believe it was.
Although you yourself did not seve that 1st notice were you involved in its preparation?
les. I saw it before it was served. I did not prepare it myself.
Juring your first interview with the 1st accused, you mentioned certain information you had received?
Ies.
Hr. Guy has told us that this information ultimately came from a witness in this case called Lau Cheong wa, do you confirm this?
This could well be true. I do not know the poulti, answer to that.
Am I correct this information has turned out to be untrue?
It has turned out to be incorrect. That is true.
૧
This information supplied is wrong?
517
A.
A.
I haven't been able to confirm if it is correct.
when the allegation of the Crown is that ir. Lau Cheong a was
closely involved in a conspiracy not only with D1 and D2 but with a
Station Sergeant Chiu Tak - are you surprised hic information is untrue or wrong?
I have no views on this.