Until the morning of the trial, Hr. CHÂN
naintained that he had made the statement referred to
and that it vas true, but that he had not made it voluntarily. These vere his instructions to the Legal Aid Officer who was acting for hin and they vere comunicated to the judge. Although, as we now know, he had an alibi, he declined to make any defence vhen invited to do so by the magistrate before vhon he appeared in the committal proceedings, nor did he (or his legal advisers vho were kept in complete ignorance of the alibi by Mr. CHAN) give the required pre-trial notice of alibi, a requirement carefully explained to Mr. CHAN by the magistrate. Mr. CHAN says that he took this course because he thought that,
if he said that the statement was untrue, the Legal Aid Officer would inform the police, the charges would be dropped and he would have to continue serving his sentence on the original robbery charges, whereas he hoped to appear in court "so that the whole thing could be reviewed",
When it was confirmed that HT, CHAN was in
the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre at the time of the killing, the Crown offered no evidence against him on the charges before the court and Mr. CHÂN was accordingly there and then acquitted. In the meantime an investigation was instituted azó my representative appeared before the judge in his chambers with the Director of Legal Aid (vho was then representing Mr. CHAN and still does) and made arrangements for Hr. CHẲN to be interviewed as the first step. investigating officer's report was submitted in due course to the Attorney General's Chambers.
as follows
The
The answers to Mrs. Elliott's questions are
/(a).
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.