3-
63
committal depositions referred to in paragraph 3).
8.
On the 12th August, 1937, a letter was written by the
Colonial Secretary of Hong Kong to H. B. M. Consul-General
at Canton, requesting the latter to invite the Chairman of
the Provincial Government of Kwangtung to waive any
jurisdiction which the Kwangtung Government might have over
the appellant. This step was taken because, in the terms
of the letter, "it (might) be argued that the crime having
taken place on board a Chinese public vessel, and the person
firing the shots being a member of the crew, the Courts of
Hong Kong have no jurisdiction over the accused, a public
vessel being analogous to an embassy". The Chairman declined
to entertain the question of waiver, limiting himself, after
negotiations, to an "unofficial assurance that he would raise
no objection to the trial of the (appellant) in the Hong Kong
Courts". The facts outlined in this paragraph were not
mentioned either at the appellant's subsequent trial or at
the hearing of his appeal to the Full Court of Hong Kong
referred to hereafter.
9. On the 23rd August, 1937, the appellant was arraigned at
the ordinary criminal session for that month of the Supreme
Court of Hong Kong on an indictment for murder. (A copy of the
indictment is amongst the papers forwarded to Messrs. Reid,
Sharman & Co., referred to in paragraph 3). The appellant was
represented by a Solicitor and Counsel assigned by the Crown.
At the end of the case for the Crown, a submission was made by
Counsel for the Defence in the absence of the Jury, that the
Court had no jurisdiction, (see the trial judge's notes
referred to in paragraph 3), but the judge held that the Court
had jurisdiction (see the shorthand note of his ruling dated
the 24th August, 1937, a certified copy of which is amongst
the documents forwarded to Messrs. Reid, Sharman & Co.,