Wat
sently
Kong from
- 5-
7.
at his business for one odd year before he suddenly failed to turn up to work after the offence incident. Usually, the prisoner was paid on a daily basis. Despite this, Mr CHOW confirmed that the prisoner used to have a steady working pattern. He was noticed to be generally dutiful at work. He was also able to relate smoothly with the co-workers, and even joined them in mahjong games sometimes after work. Normally the prisoner could earn as much as $50-70 per day in busy days, but in the winter season because of the less amount of business transactions in the fruit market, the prisoner would then earn much less in his wages. Mr CHOW believed that it might be the prisoner's financial tightness at that time that he was driven to get into trouble with the law.
Mrs CHEUNG (the prisoner's landlady, living with him et the same flat
Mrs CHEUNG confirmed that the prisoner and his wife had been living in the room she sublet for one odd year before his arrest. Before his marriage, he had once been Mrs CHEUNG's tenant too. Mrs CHEUNG claimed she had noticed that the prisoner and his wife were leading a regular life, just as ordinary couples did. It was said that the prisoner usually went out to work in the morning and returned home for dinner, with not in dubious visitors. So far he paid his rent regularly and maintained a smooth relationship with other co-tenants by joining them in chatting sometimes, and gave an impression of a polite and decent character..
8. Mr YUEN Yiu-hung (the prisoner's best friend, a mason worker, presently
living with wife and daughter at Flat 16, Hung Wan Court, 1/F., 7, Wu Kwong Street,
claimed
turned up for interview at the very late stage of the enquiry. He did not reject the comment from the prisoner's relatives about his possible adverse influence on the prisoner leading to his first robbery and breaking of the law in 1973. However, that he believed the prisoner had received dubious influence from his ex-prisoners at the later stage though he himself also joined them to tea sometime. He alleged that he had already reminded the prisoner to guard against such influence when he noticed that the prisoner had been going along with them more closely, showing more discontent with his limited income and having a fluctuated working pattern around the time of the present offence. Other than these changes in that short while before the offence,
claimed that he believed the prisoner had been leading a regular life with no particular bad habits. As a friend, he regarded the prisoner as a smooth and likable character who was normally generous in rendering financial help to his friends despite that he had to raise loans for his own maintenance afterwards.
also requested for a
chance to take a lenient view on the prisoner's sentence.
F. INTERVIEW WITH THE PRISONER
He
The prisoner was interviewed at Stanley Prison on 28.10.80. appeared frank and cooperative in revealing his background and readily admitted his responsibility in the present robbery which was aimed at monetary gain.
/6......