258
Inspectors, because of his Chinese origin. And if an Inspector is deprived of the support of his superiors' confidence, and at the same time is made liable to condemnation upon evidence which would not be allowed to be valid in a law court, his position becomes impracticable. Your Petitioner, therefore, submits that as a matter of common fairness, evidence that was not legal evidence ought not to have been taken into consideration at all against him, or at least not until But in the charge had been substantiated to some extent by legal evidence. your Petitioner's case there was no legal evidence against him, but only the bare And what did that suspicion arising from the facts set out in paragraph 13. suspicion amount to? Only to this, that Sham In said that he paid the amount opposite the name Kwan to some one to pay your Petitioner. That is all.
15.-For the purpose of this Petition your Petitioner asked for a copy of the evidence taken on the enquiry by Captain May, but it was not given to him. He cannot, therefore, point to that evidence in detail, but he says that the following witnesses, namely: Sham In, Tse Leung, Hau Hang P.C. 137, and Au Hing P.C. 143, were examined against him, and not one of them gave a single word of direct evidence against him to prove either negligence, or bribe- taking.
And this your Petitioner would remark was not from any lack either of inducements or threats held out to the witnesses, both those called and others privately examined, but not called at the enquiry. Your Petitioner attaches hereto (Schedule No. 3) copies of statements verified before the British Vice- Consul in Canton, by one Tang Chung, one Yeung Fat, and one O Mi-cheung respectively, for the general purpose of showing:
(1) The exceptional efforts made by the prosecution to procure evidence.
(2) The fact that no evidence could be procured even by such efforts.
(3) And the attitude of mind of your Petitioner's judge, Captain May,
prior to the trial of Petitioner.
your
So far as your Petitioner's recollection serves, the above named Tang Chung, his nephew, his cook, and a man called Tam Shat, were the persons who were
to your Petitioner. alleged by Sham In to have received money from him to pay
16. With regard to the charge against your Petitioner, it was a charge of negligence in not discovering and not reporting gambling on the 2nd floor of 2, Wah Lane, but your Petitioner would remark :
(1) That the severity of the punishment awarded, namely absolute dismissal
entailing loss of pension after over 20 years' service.
(2) The gist of the questions put to the men Tang Chung, Yeung Fat,
and O Mi-cheung (Schedule No. 3).
(3) And Captain May's statement to your Petitioner upon his suspension
on July 18th (paragraph No. 11 above).
go to show that your Petitioner has been sentenced, not for more negligence, however gross, but for the unproved and unlaid charge of accepting bribes. Your Petitioner, therefore, urges that in substance and in spirit the sentence is illegal, and that he is entitled to specific redress, especially as regards his pension.
17.
́.—On the subject of pension, your Petioner would invite attention as to the terms of the Police Pensions Regulations, July, 1897, relating to officers recruited prior to 1884 (see Schedule No. 4 hereto.) From them it will be seen that, sub- ject to the provisions set out, the Government engages that a pension at the rate of 15/60ths will be granted to an officer who has served ten years, and further that for every full and complete year's service after ten years an addition of 1/60th shall be made for each additional year. Under the above Regulation, your Peti- tioner urges that he would be entitled to some pension even if he had been properly convicted of negligence. With regard to Rule 10 in the said Schedule No. 4 set out he submits that the words "conduct decidedly bad" stand opposed to the words "conduct uniformly good," and imply "conduct continuously bad," not any single act of negligence, however great.
18. To return to the charge of negligence actually laid against your Petitioner, he, your Petitioner, begs to point out:
(1.) That Wah Lane was not in his section, that therefore it would not be likely to be reported to him, and that he would only pass the place when on patrol.
(2.) That the place is in a low neighbourhood, where nothing much can be inferred by an Inspector on patrol from the mere presence of low characters; and that this gambling establishment was on the 2nd floor.
(3.) That Inspectors have no effectual powers even in their own district (sce Police Regulation, Schedule No. 5 hereto) to enable them to discover gambling houses, and are practically dependent entirely on detectives and informers.
(4.) That the general body of detectives had according to the latest order of the Captain Superintendent been taken off special duty in relation to gambling houses.
(5.) That even if otherwise there is the admission of several detectives still retained in the service that they accepted bribes not to report, and refrained from reporting.
(6.) That since the discontinuance of the system of rewarding informers they have little or no inducement to give information, except for the purpose of making a profit by subsequently warning the gamblers against the Police.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.