Your Petitioners have been unable to obtain a copy of the witness statements referred to in the enquiry, which has made it difficult for them to thoroughly understand the whole position for the purposes of this Petition.
Your Petitioner has no personal feeling against the Captain Superintendent of Police and is not imputing to him any unfairness, though strongly protesting against the methods which allowed a man to be broken on an enquiry held in such a manner.
Now, if the proceedings were conducted by the strict letter of the law, which, as Your Petitioner is convinced, is doubtful, Your Petitioner submits that it is unconstitutional and inequitable that the prosecutor should preside over such an enquiry, and that the President should be an impartial person who could hear evidence on both sides with the assistance of trained lawyers, so that the full benefit of cross-examination might be obtained.
Your Petitioner had the opportunity of questioning the witnesses, it is true, but he was not allowed to take notes because he was standing to attention before the Captain Superintendent, and no writing materials were offered to him, nor was he allowed to take notes during the enquiry. The Captain Superintendent ordered him to stand in a particular place during the enquiry.
Your Petitioner says that the withholding of the evidence and the lack of opportunity to take notes were inequitable and unfair.
Further, Your Petitioner's legal advisers would point out that a person committed for trial on a charge of murder is entitled to a copy of the depositions on which he is committed.
A copy of Your Petitioner's Statement of Defence handed to the Captain Superintendent of Police during the enquiry is contained in the Fourth Schedule.
Your Petitioner was not dismissed for bribery. There was a suggestion of it in the evidence given by Sham In, a convicted gambler, who gave evidence for Your Petitioner, which, as far as Your Petitioner is aware, is absolutely false.
This witness, Sham In, further said that the expression "Dai Lau" referred to Your Petitioner. Your Petitioner believes that this expression, as used by the witness, did not refer to him. The term "Dai Lau" is a term used in more than one sense.
Your Petitioner refers to an enquiry recently held by the Captain Superintendent to enquire into a charge against Mr. Angus McIntyre. A Chinese witness examined by Sergeant McIntyre made use of the words "Dai Lau" in the course of being cross-examined.
Page 404
11.
12.
16.
it
404
11.
12.
16.
should have genew Your Petitioners
copy of the widnice retted for to membles them to thoroughly understands the weshole positions for the purposes of this Petition.
y
that it is uncours
کا
acte or droits, but he is.
GAALKAI CO serRAI
Your Politioner has no personal feeling against the Captain Superintendent of Police and is not infucting to him ans surrougfeel fair respectfully though strongly forotecting agonist re eyelmes which can allow a man to be broken on aAN enquiry held in such a manner - now if the proceedings.
by the strich lester of the laws, which, as Your Petitioner is covivors, is doubtful, your Petitioner stitutional and inequitable that the prosecutor should firsside overt
be such an enquiry, and that the President segles
- infertial person who obcousd hear evidence on both sides with the assistance of trained lawyers, wo thout thas
Cas full. benefit of croes examination might be obtained. Your Petitioner had the offerorkunity
the witnesses, it is true, but he is not. of questioning
for was he afforded the opportunity of tathing notes, because during be was standing to attention before the Captain Suferintendent, and no writing materials
he active if he
would like to take udes. We LAPA L
ecere
teary serd
to
Долгие
Vizes
• adefit at crown_2famination.
thesecolele mepesiy
સાક્ષ
offered to him, orderou by the Cofitain Superintendant to stud in a particuler place during the enquien
Petitioner says that the withholding of the
inequitable and unfair- ident
and he did so
accordingly.
Further
Your
evidence acted for by your Petitioner's legal
advisers wond
a murderer committed for trial is entitled to a · coping of the depositions on which he is
committed.,
CLE
A copy of your Petitioners Statement of defences handed to the Cafetarin Superintendent of Police
during the enquiry above illuded to is contained in the fourtho Schedule keramider wveristen.
there is
1.10
0.0
Four Petitioner
of
to anothers massed
Your Petitioners is not dismissed for bribery. In the sentences
ce of disunisal suggestion of bribery. There was a suggestions of it in the riduce given
that he frail mess. by Sham In, as convicted quubler, whe says for Your Peletioner, which
far as Your Petitioner is aware is absolutely matrice. "This weiteress, Shams on, further said there the expression "Don's she referred to your
that
Kussen mrcought
the Celine by this exferession so far as he is aware. The expression litter all of its "Large head"
the witness win that it referred to Your Petitioner beension be
the belie of the district. "four Politioner was husions amon egot
"Safe to ie oto 10, which was his number in the Parce. This certains that the tenu "Dai daw is a terus which is used in more
сва wage
Politiques.
A
Clauer
DA).
A
the once pector
اله تم سے
awinstances of this Your Petitioner refors to an ouquing recently bold by the Cafelaine Sexperintendent to mequire into a charge against der grant Angus elve cAuley. A chinese evituess
examined by Sergeant ollee Auley made use
of the words
in the course
of being
Cross
(5)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.