385.
408
Lam
pris.
641
642
ashul
643
ditto
another question of whether Lau had framed or attempted to frame the defendant in the murder case you heard of. ly learned friend in his address to you poured scorn on this suggestion, he caid it never got off the ground. This is true but let us be fair. It did not set off the ground because of my learned friend's objection to the evidence which would have proved it. I am not going through Lau's evidence with a fine toothcomb
suffice it to say that these matters I have shown is that he is a witness who is not worthy of belief, a witness upon whose evidence no conviction could be based. Indeed it is arguable a witness who is under such pressure to give testimony having regard to his own predicament and desire for a shorter sentence that his evidence might not be admissible at all. I say that admissibility as against weight none- thelear if it is admissible weight attached to it should be nil. We are all aware that however much of a liar, however bad a witness's Character it is open to a Court nevertheless to accept his testimony on certain issues. I don't think Your Honour would fail to note the manner in which this clever and experienced witness gave his evidence in chief. Unfortunately I don't record in and A. form but Mr. ceats
-
had had to put only a few questions to him it all pointed out as a prepared cohesive constructed story, a story which is immensely difficult to cross-examine. This is in relation to that evidence. Loth I and
r. Gunston cross-examined on other matters relating to credibility but all of these points which are to be taken into account in deciding whether or not despite his perjury you can accept his evidence on his alleged meeting with D1 is whether there is any other evidence you can check it against, to see whether it is probably true, any other evidence which would corroborate the fact that Lau was so deeply involved in this conspiracy that he made the active approach so aware of how Chiu Tak fitted in to the scheme of things that he used him apparently as a paying agent. There are 2 matters which shout out that these are lies first is the evidence under cross-examination of both Guy and Clarke during the 1st interview with D1 that a series of drafts had been paid to him by Liu Chong Hing Bank. This information was admitted to have been derived from Lau. Another startling piece of misinformation from Clarke when he interviewed D1/point that brothels were included in establishments protected. If you gave false information to ICAC about a conspiracy in which you are supposed to be the prime mover it can indicate only one thing you don't know about it'- you may
-
1
19
8