2-
The following statement, the original of which was signed by Mr. Siu in my office on 27th. July, 1966, gives an example of insufficient evidence having been put before a Magistrate, undoubtedly with the intention of perverting justice. This is common, and the purpose is: certainly, corruption. There is no means of having an investigation, as the Head of the Department is supreme. In this case I was rapped for daring to ask for an investigation:
"My name is Siu Hung Chung, of the Kwangtung Province of China, the district of Tai Pu. I am 26 years old. My present address is 51 Hopei Street, G/F, Tsuen Wan.
On 18th. January, 1966, at about 6 p.m., I was buying vegetables in Kowloon Bay. Suddenly three big non came and ordered nd not to move or they would kill no. Suddenly they beat and kicked me until I was unconscious. When I regained consciousness my Rolex watch was missing.
I wanted to report to the Police, but I saw a person named Chong, a ricc-seller and talked to him about the men who had beaten me, and about my watch being stolen. I then took a bus and reported at Kwun Tong Police Station. At the Police Station they sent me in an ambulance to Kwong Wah Hospital. After seven days' treatment I was discharged. (The man had a hospital chit to prove this stay in hospital - Ñ.E.)
After this, the Police called me several times to the Police Station for questioning. Then I received a notice saying that the three robbers had been arrested on a charge of robbery. On 9th. March I went to the Kwun Tong Court but at that time I noticed the charge had been changed to one of assault. When the Court began I found that there were only two robbers instead of three.
The result was that the robbers had to pay $100 compensation for my nedicine. They did not call my witness Cheng, and they did not call mo to the witness box. They only listened to what the police said. But the robbers had two solicitors. I objected to the verdict, but the Judge said that was contempt of Court. He said, "If you don't agruo, go to Wong Tai Sin Police Station and see the officer in charge.
I went to the Wong Tai Sin Police Station, where I was told to co to South Kowloon Court to soc a high official named "Mo Lo". Lo told me if I did not agree I should go to the Supreme Court. I spent a whole day but could not find out what to do. My god, what do I know about Hong Kong law? How could I get justice for ny grievence? It seemed that the only way was to ask Mrs. Elliott to help me.
On 26th. July, 1966, in Shing To newspaper, I found that before the Riot Inquiry Commission, my case was misrepresented by the Counsel for the Police, and that Mrs. Elliott was treated unreasonably on my account. I felt very sorry. So today I especially asked leave to come
from Tsuen Wan to see Mrs. Elliott.
:
I would like to explain the truth of my case to let all the public know it. Of course I am very frightened to do this. But I shall never forget this pain in all my life. So I hope the community will sympathise and give no security."
Signed in Chinese, by Siu Hung Chung.
At the Commission of Inquiry into the Riots, this case was brought forward by Counsel for the Police to try to prove that I was in the habit of making "unfounded allegations" against the police. However, I was novor given the chance to bring forward any of my witnesses to provo anything. The Commission of Inquiry was completely controlled by Counsel for the Police and Coungol for the Government. A groat amount of evidence was suppressed.
Another case, at present sub judice, will soon be prepared to show not only suppression of real evidence but also framing of complainants.
Yours sincerely,
(here) E. Eleint
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.