0003170
Q. F. 317
TOP SECRET
9.
10.
11.
own admission no witness was present on any occasion when the accused allegedly passed information to HON Pik Kwong• We are left, therefore, in the position of only having the evidence of HON Pik Kwong himself to rely upon in this matter, plus the evidence of other witnesses who might lend corroboration to his allegations. There are the strongest suspicions that S/Sgt. CHU Leung did give information to HON Pik Kwong, and probably to YIP Wai and CHAN Cho Hong as well, but suspicions are not evidence. I think it would be dangerous to accept the evidence of HON Pik Kwong on these charges without a reasonable degree of corroboration from other witnesses. I do not consider that the hearsay evidence of CHAN Cho Hong provides satisfactory corroboration, or the evidence of Mr. O'Brien concerning the case of WONG Kin Kung. other evidence is 'material to these two charges. I do not consider these two charges proved to my satis- faction or beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore I find the accused not guilty on both of them.
Charge (D)1.
No
I accept the evidence of HON Pik Kwong and CHAN Cho Hong that S/Sgt. CHU Leung did associate with them on a number of occasions and that as an experienced Special Branch officer he must have known from what transpired generally at these meetings that they were K.M.T. Intel- ligence Officers. Accordingly I consider this charge proved and find the accused guilty.
Charges (E)1, 2 and 3.
The only evidence to sustain these charges is that of HON Pik Kwong himself. YIP Wai was not available to give evidence and there is no corroboration whatsoever to support these allegations. While they may well be true, I feel it would be very dangerous to convict S/Sgt. CHU Leung on two charges of receiving money and a charge of soliciting money without corroboration to some degree. I do not consider these three charges proved to my satis- faction, or beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly find the accused not guilty on each one of them.
In charges of this nature, an accused person is invariably likely to be in a difficult position in regard to defend- ing himself and rebutting the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It was so in this case. S/Sgt. CHU Leung's defence, stoutly maintained throughout, was that he did not know the four material prosecution witnesses HON Pik Kwong, CHAN Cho Hong, CHEUNG Fu Yan and YAM Sai Ping, that he had never met them, and that their evidence in respect of him is a complete tissue of lies from start to finish. He had no witnesses on his behalf. I do not think S/Sgt. CHU Leung is telling the truth when he says that he did not know these four persons, have any dealings with them in any way, or meet them. From the evidence of the prosecution I belive that S/Sgt. CHU Leung did meet these four men and knew them, that he knew HON Pik Kwong and CHAN Cho Hong to be K.M.T. Intelligence Agents and that he associated with HON Pik Kwong and CHAN Cho Hong • I reject his defence statement concerning these matters.
/4.....
TOP SECRET
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.