TNAG-0550-FCO40-645-Allegations-of-corruption-and-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-police-an-1975 — Page 86

-2-

It then unexpectedly came to light that this child was not the first

girl worker' to become a victim to this man. A year previously another girl, aged 16, had been defiled, having been seduced by promise of narriage. When I asked the Solicitor General if this man should go free to rape girls (the danger was obvious since girls worked in the factory), he replied facetiously that this question was in the nature of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?" He did not; however, on this or any other occasion answer my questions in a straightforward manner, or even accurately. I therefore had to write again and ask him to check this other case. I gave the year and the Police Station involved and considered records would be available. The Solicitor General replied that no such report could be found.

tr

..

At this point I found an unexpected witness. He had been wrongly named as the seducer of the 16 year-old girl and had been arrested and questioned. With the additional details it was then possible to pin-point the case and names, and the Solicitor eneral then had to admit that there was such a case. No action had been taken against the employer on that occasion because it was, so the Police are supposed to have said, a false charge made by the girl to force

and the man to marry her, but she had withdrawn her accusation.

The lie was given to this piece of libel against the 16-year-old girl

as her seducer. when the witness said he was named: she was not trying to force the witness

A to marry her. In fact, she had been intimidated to use the other man's name: he had been one of her workmates.

He said he

The Solicitor General still saw no reason to investigate. believed the Police story and did not consider it necessary to interview any of the other persons, the girls, the mother, or the young man.

I then asked for the names and addresses of all persons involved 30 that I could interview the other girl's family myself. These were given, but the information was ridiculous: the address given for the gr was actually that of her seducer. The name of her so-called sister was herself. The other addresses given were completely wrong. It took five afternoons of hard searching to locate the girl. She confirmed that she had been seduced by promises of marriage, that she had been iffimidated into naming the wrong person, and that the seducer with police help had persuaded her mother to withdraw the charges after a promise of marriage was made, but as soon as she withdrew the charges, the offer of marriage was also withdrawn. In fact, soon after the man married. And soon after she learned of hot workmate's fate, the little innocent child,

It has taken eight months to ferret out this information, with deliberate obstruction at every turn by the Solicitor General's Office. want action. I am not asking condemnation for the man: only a fair trial, se that other little girls will not end up as victims should he be guilty. The infant too needa support, and the child-mother should be maintained.

}

I now

I challenge the Solipitor General to contradict any point of this story, which I have investigated with the greatest possible care and under the most difficult circumstances due to lack of co-oparation by his office.

Tel. K-801315 .

Yours faithfully,

E. Elliott

E-Cluste