appeared to be a sophisticated person of dubious background but he felt himself not in the position to advise to the Prisoner. As the Prisoner had borrowed Mr. WONG's car during the period when the present crime took place, Mr. WONG had been subjected to police investigation for quite some time. Though being brought to such trouble, Mr. WONG spoke in favour of the Prisoner. He found the Prisoner an honest, modest,
He believed that the hard working young person, who displayed few behavior problem. Prisoner have been led astray by his undesirable companies. Mr. WONG also commented
Mr. WONG that the Prisoner was too foolish to have committed such grave offence. begged for commutation for the Prisoner.
5.
Mr. LI informed that he knew the Prisoner for a very short period before the present offence under the introduction of Mr. TAM Ho-kin whom he knew in China. Mr. LI admitted that the Prisoner had enlisted his help to ask back the money due to the latter from the Deceased. Having known that Mr. LI had no triad background, the Prisoner had dropped the proposal. By that time Mr. LI was working in some tea company with meagre income. The Prisoner thus had invited him to work together with him as a sales respresentative selling TV sets. Hoping to gain more, Mr. LI did as suggested. He quitted the job and moved to live at the rented flat at Tai Tong Road, i.e. where the present offence took place, with the intention to start this new business. Allegedly Mr. LI only know the Prisoner's nick-name as So Ha, and believed his surname was LAM as indicated in the tenancy lease. Anyhow, LI commented that the Prisoner was of mild temperament and was aneasy going person who was willing to teach Mr. LI the promotion techniques. Mr. LI strongly denied that the present murder case was a preplanned one, but it had started during a quarrel between the Deceased and the Prisoner. Yet he admitted to have helped the Prisoner in disposing the dead body. Mr. LI regretted his involvement in such a serious crime and intended to leave Hong Kong when he had served his sentence. He further commented that the Frisoner should not have been convicted with murder and should not be given a death sentence.
Mr. CHAN claimed to have never met the Prisoner before the trial of the
He further present case thus he was unable to comment on the Prisoner's personality. stressed that he had no involvement in the present drug trafficking case and felt unjustly treated.
6. Mr. IP Yuek-Keung, f/25 (Co-accused of the same offence "Conspiracy in Trafficking
Dangerous Drugs" now serving his sentence in the Stanley Prison).
7.
Mr. IP recalled that he first met the Prisoner in 1978 and had met the latter several times afterwards. Since no close contacts was maintained, Mr. IP was unable to give comments on the Prisoner's personality. Mr. IP was very agitated during the interview and repeatedly claimed that he had nothing to do with the conspiracy case and he was very angry for being sentenced ten years imprisonment.
Mr. CHAN came to know the Prisoner in 1976 when he was working for Mr. WONG
Their Ping. At that time they were both accommodated by Mr. WONG at Hung Hom. contact decreased though they were hawkers at Tung Choi Street. In April 1979, the Prisoner requested to share his cubicle at his residence as reported above. Having considered him to be an honest person without apparent vice habit, Mr. CHAN
Cont'd./permitted the ...