2
11
previous view as to take a graver view of the case than the Governor, he surely would have given this as his reason. As it is the only one he gives for his choice is contained in the following words. (Par. 5 of his letter of 14 August). The usual course was adopted of framing the charge on the wider scope, viz, mis- "conduct as a constable, and of recording as in similar cases the party complaining
as Complainant, the Chief Inspector watching the case.'
6+
14. Here we have an indication of what, I have not the least doubt, was his real reaosn.
Section 23 makes it clear that if the Captain Superintendent exercises his discretion in sending the case before the Magistrate, he must do so in his own Baine. The enactment of the Section 22 is not so precise on this point, though in the opinion of the Attorney General, the Superintendent's duty under it is equally obvious;
and indeed most if not all the charges which could be brought are in their nature such that they could only be made by the Police authorities, with the Captain Superintendent as complainant. This clause however afforded a colourable excuse, which the other did not, for introducing a private person as complainant; and so, Mr. DEANE took the extraordinary course of entering in the charge-sheet the person, who complained to him, as the complainant before the Magistate, and practically forced that person to appear in that character without first consulting him, and as it appears, entirely against his will. The conduct of the trial which subsequently Took place is one of the gravest points in the case, as if it had been the primary object of the Police authorities to secure the acquittal of the accused, they could scar- cely have taken any course better calculated to attain it. But what I wish to point out specially in this place is that the distinct evasion of his proper responsibility on the part of Mr. DEANE is another and a serious instance of the defect in his conduct which is referred to in the Report of the Recent Committee of Council made before my arrival in the Colony.
15. The circumstances of the trial above referred to are stated at some length in my minute of the 18th August. The additional attention which this Memorial has compelled me to give to the subject has shown me however that they might have been put much more forcibly. It will be observed that in the letter of Mr. HORSPOOL, the Chief Inspector, be states "and I also sent word to the complainant, asking him to be present, with his witnesses, on that date at 10 o'clock." Whether the message was delivered by the Chinese constable in this form, or whether the complainant was told to be at Court and to bring LEUNG KING without the word witness being mentioned, it is now impossible to determine. We have, however, the statement of the complainant, which seems very likely to be true, that he went to Court without any knowledge of the part he had to play there; and as he had merely asked that the Sergeant should be reprimanded he was obviously quite unprepared for the proper conduct of his case against a lawyer on the other side, and with the Police certainly not on his side.
16. For beyond the evidence given on behalf of Sergeant SHEIK ALIM by two constables, whose position, if any, in the case should have been that of co-defend- ants, the only part taken by the Police in Court was that of Chief Inspector HORSPOOL, who gave evidence as to the defendant's previous good character. It is true that according to the Captain Superintendent, Mr. HORSPOOL watched the case and Mr. HonsPOOL himself states that he watched the case "on behalf of the Police." I do not doubt that he watched the case on behalf of the Police; but the question is with what purpose did he watch it? For that of securing that the true facts were elicited? or for that of procuring an acquittal? There is not the slightest evidence either in his own or Mr. DEANE'S statements or in the printed report of the case forwarded by Mr. DEANE, or in the Magistatrate's notes of the case, that he took the former part; while there is strong negative evidence on the other side. Not to mention that the first alternative implies a position which should be, to say the least, impartial, and that if he appeared in that position it would have been well, for the sake of appearance, that the evidence to character should have been given by some one else, Mr. HORSPOOL finds that the defendant is represented by Counsel, and he makes no effort to have the case adjourned so that Counsel might be retained on the other side, he suggests no questions, and actually allows the Magistrate to be misled not only by the defendant's Counsel, as to the whole character of the case but by one if not both of the Police witnesses, as to a particular
fact.
From the evidence of both of these Constables, especially of one, it would be inferred that there had been no search of the House, whereas it now appears from
}
Enclosure 2.
16th August, 1888.
Captain DEANE's memorial that according to the Sergeant's own admission the house was searched, and by the Sergeant himself (as deposed by the witness, LEUNG KING, though he was apparently not believed.) In fact all that was done, and not done, by the Police in the case was such as to lead the Magistrate, and what is of more importance, the defendant and his countrymen to believe that the Authorities were against him, and that his chance of obtaining justice was hopeless.
tion.
17. The suggestion in the last sentence of (i) has been already dealt with As to the quotation in (ii) from a despatch of Mr. STANHOPE, I am unable to see how it helps Mr. DEANE's case. On the contrary it seems to contain his condemna- With a perverse ingenuity of interpretation which has frequently made itself evident ou previous occasions, Mr. DEANE who at first looked upon the com- plaint as merely a matter for a civil Court, now when it suits his purpose, regards a criminal it as within the category indicated by Mr. STANHOPE in the words offence, unconnected with Police duty." Considering that the defendant and one of his subordinates when they went to the complainant's house, were in uniform, and that in searching the house they performed an act which but for their character as l'olice, would unquestionably have been resisted, it is difficult to understand how Mr. DEANE can regard the offence as one unconnected with Police duty; or how he could inform the complainant as he did that the Sergeant charged had acted "in his private capacity, and not as a Police Sergeant."
18. But granting that Mr. DEANE made a mistake in his view of the case, which however extraordinary was at least genuine, I need scarcely point out that he did not follow the course prescribed by Mr. STANHOPE.
He recommended the complainant not to "prosecute" for a criminal offence, "because of the wider but to "prosecute civilly" (whatever that may mean)
'powers of the Court" (in what respect pertinent to this case the powers are wider is not, and could not, be mentioned.)
<<
It is moreover to be noted that when Mr. DEANE was at last forced by me to take action, the complainant was not afforded an option of prosecuting or not as Mr. STANHOPE instructs. It is true that the complainant was "asked to go to Court by a Coustable under orders from Mr. HousPOOL, but he might well have regarded as an order, a request made under such circumstances. (He indeed alleges in his statement attached to the Petition of 152 Chinese shopkeepers, trans- lation of which is attached, that he was
told to go.)
In fact, so far from being "guided in accordance with the spirit" of Mr. STAN- HOPE'S instructions, as Mr. DEANE alleges, he directly contravened them both in the spirit and letter.
19. (iii) requires no notice beyond what has been said already. As to the points on which Mr. DEANE states himself to "join issue" with me in (iv) I have merely to remark (1) that the extreme reluctance of the Chinese to enter into con flict with the Government, especially with the Police though denied by Mr. DEANE is asserted by Mr. RUSSELL, Acting Chief Justice, by Mr. STEWART, Colonial Secre- tary, who was for a long tune Protector of Chinesc, and by Mr. LOCKHART who now holds that office, and also by the Attorney General. Such an opinion from Officers some of whom are far better acquainted than Mr. DEANE with the Chinese. and their language and have made a special study of Chinese habits and peculiarities cannot be effectively contradicted by Mr. DEANE alone, supported by the single instance, mentioned in his letter of the 7th August, and this even though the fact be left out of consideration that having very frequently shown himself out of sympathy with the Chinese his opinion on such a point is entitled to very little weight (2) that the principle which Mr. DEANE lays down as to the impropriety of any action ou his part against a Policeman until the charge against him has been tried before a Court would require him to permit a Policeman to continue to act as such, even when he was charged with murder.
20. (v) and (vi) seem to need no further comment. As to (vii) I may remark that I have never objected to the Sergeant having been brought before the Court "by entry on a charge sheet." My strictures were solely directed to the com- plainant being brought before the Court in this way.
21. As to (ix) I did not hold Mr. DEANE responsible because the Solicitor of the Defence chose to call certain Police Officers as witnesses on behalf of his client. I merely mentioned their appearance in this character in order to show how the complainant's case suffered from the want of a Solicitor on his side, and as one of the facts indicating that the part taken by the Police was wholly against him.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.