NKC 236/
RECEIVED IN
18 MAR 1991
ULSK OFFICE.
・band GX
HA
FROM: G J Coglin
Hong Kong Department
DATE: 18 March 1991
Mr Stone
Mr Burns
MR HUNG KAI-MING: PETITION TO THE QUEEN
SEE
ANNEX
σ
A B
highlighted)
C
1. Your manuscript minutes of 3 March and 4 March refer. have consulted Legal Advisers on this case again. I attach
my minute of 6 March and Miss Brooks reply of 13 March.
2.
Para 2 of Miss Brook's minute deals with the procedural questions you raise in point 1 of your manuscript minute of 4 March. In summary she confirms that what I proposed was
in order.
I
3. As regards point 3 of your minute there was indeed a defect in the disciplinary proceedings. From the Explanatory Notes on Procedure at Disciplinary Hearing no 10 (flag K), it is evident that Mr Hung should have been given the chance to plead in mitigation after the charges were found proven but before punishment was awarded. However Miss Brooks takes the view that Hung was not prejudiced by
this (Miss Brooks minute of 6 February refers). I agree
that it would be worthwhile to draw this oversight to the attention of the Hong Kong Government. Although the officer involved did submit a written representation, this clearly
seems to have been done before he knew he would be found
guilty on two fo the four counts. Should we wish to challenge the Hong Kong Government's recommendation on this case however, a submission from you to the Secretary of State would be required.
SALAAU/1
сс