WETHESDAY,
OCTOBER 10, 1984
THE ADMINISTRATION HAD, THEREFORE, ACKNOWLEDGED THESE MORTCOMINGS AND WAS PAYING AN EX GRATIA SUM OF $12 000 TO CHOI YUK-FAI, CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF HIS LOSSES.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS REPLYING TO A QUESTION BY THE HON JOHN SWAINE CONCERNING THE CASE, IN WHICH THE MAN WAS ACQUITTED ON MAY 30 LAST YEAR ON A CHARGE OF POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS, AFTER SPENDING 55 DAYS IN CUSTODY.
THE MAN, MR SWAINE SAID, HAD NOT BEEN ALLOWED BAIL BECAUSE OF CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES IN THE WAY HE HAD BEEN CHARGED.
THE CASE, MR SWAINE SAID, HAD BEEN REPORTED TO THE ADMINISTRATION BY INTERESTED PERSONS INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE LAW SOCIETY SCHEME AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION FOR ENQUIRY AND POSSIBLE COMPENSATION, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD PROMISED TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON IT.
MR SWAINE HAD ASKED THAT THE COUNCIL BE INFORMED OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INVESTIGATIONS.
MR THOMAS SAID THAT CHOI, WHO HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD AND WAS AN ADDICT, WAS ARRESTED ON APRIL 6 LAST YEAR, ALLEGEDLY AS THE BUYER AND INTENDED USER OF A SMALL QUANTITY OF HEROIN.
BY THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF MISHAPS, MR THOMAS SAID, THE MAN WAS CHARGED BEFORE TSUEN WAN MAGISTRATES' COURT WITH AN INAPPROPRIATE CHARGE, THAT OF TRAFFICKING IN DANGEROUS DRUGS RATHER THAN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.
ON APRIL 13, AFTER THE CHARGES HAD BEEN PROPERLY AMENDED, A SECOND MISHAP OCCURRED IN THAT THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES WERE MIS INFORMED BY THE CLERK AT THE MAGISTRACY THAT CHOI WAS REMANDED ON BOTH TRAFFICKING AND THE POSSESSION CHARGE, ALTHOUGH BY THEN THE PROSECUTION HAD DROPPED THE TRAFFICKING CHARGE AGAINST HIM.
+THIS RESULTED IN A SERIES OF INJUSTICES BECAUSE ON MAY 6, 1983, ON A REVIEW OF WHETHER BAIL SHOULD BE GRANTED, THE MAGISTRATE WAS QUITE WRONGLY INFORMED THAT CHOI FACED ANOTHER CHARGE OF UNLAWFUL TRAFFICKING IN DRUGS, FOR WHICH HE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMANDED IN CUSTODY IN ANY EVENT.
+THE TRUTH WAS, OF COURSE, THAT THIS REFERRED TO THE CHARGE THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DROPPED, HE SAID.
THIS STATEMENT REMOVED ALL PROSPECT OF GETTING BAIL.
+ IF THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL HAD BEEN DEALT WITH, AS IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN, WITH REFERENCE TO THE POSSESSION CHARGE ALONE, THEN I BELIEVE THE MAGISTRATE WOULD HAVE GRANTED BAIL, HE SAID.
THIS INCIDENT WAS NOT THE FAULT OF THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES IN ANY WAY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID.
/REFERRING TO