TNAG-0552-FCO40-647-Allegations-of-corruption-and-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-police-an-1975 — Page 32

Mr R.W.Primrtse

Administrative Secretary UMELCO Office

Windsor House, 3/F

Des Voeux Rd. Hong Kong

Dear Sir,

BY HAND

Re: EBCR L/M(A) 26/73 of the Colonial

Secretariat, Hong Kong Government. Criminal Case VCC 241/74 of the Victoria District Court, Hong Kong. WH 1/62/73 UMELCO Office.

Pun Ting Chau Fl. 1022 Bell House Blk. A

525-543 Nathan Rd. Kowloon

5th Oct. 1975

I beg to inform you that the 3 defendants convicted in April this year by Judge Jones of the Victoria District Court of 4 counts of conspiracy and theft against me were set free on 8th Sept. 1975 in the Supreme Court by

and

who, after 46 days of "deliberation", allowed their appeal on a fallacious argument discreditting Senior Superintendent J.P.MacMahon, of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, without having regard to the strength of the case for the Crown, the quantity of evidence and exhibits before the court as well as public interest.

As everyone knows, the above case is very strong and the charges laid against the defendants by the Crown have been substantiated by convincing evidence and numerous exhibits. Likewise, the identities of and illegal activities on the part of the 3 defendants as Tin Sin Kuk swindlers in Hong Kong are known not only yo officers within the Crown prosecution, but also to defence counsels and the judges concerned, including

As they are very shrewd and all use fictitious names and false addresses to conceal their real identities, it is by far the more difficult for law enforcement officers to arrest Tin Sin Kuk swindlers than criminals of other descriptions.

and

On the social scene, there are over 100 Tin Sin Kuk swindle rackets operating on both sides of the harbour in Hong Kong and each year sees hundreds of victims to swindles of this nature.

Moreover, the defendants were arrested by a special team of ICAC and police officers working round the clock in simultaneous pre-dawn raids after several months of vigorous secret investigations. There are a number of swindlers/conspirators sought by police in connection with the above case still at large.

Needless to say, the decision of

and

goes counter to public

interest and their responsibilities as judges of law to the Hong Kong Government.

The outcome of the relevant legal proceedings in the above case is quite unnatural and is against a legal precedent in the law history of Hong Kong. (ref. no. KCC 106/73)

There are indications that a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice attributable to such outside factors as money, gifts etc. has succeeded and, as a result, a very strong case for the Crown has been upset by foul means,

In particular, the irresponsible decision of

and

is against social justice insofar as it will make future prosecutions of Tin Sin Kuk offences in Hong Kong extremely difficult, or, what is worse, almost impossible.

For your perusal, I enclose herewith a copy of my Petition dd. 20th Sept. 1975 to the Governor and Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong dealing with latest developments in the above case and expressing my grievances for the informa- tion of the world at large and for publicity by the media.

In Hong Kong, few civil servants have the courtesy to answer letters in which members of the public complain about corruption and allied scandals in the public service.

I shall be much obliged, therefore, if you will kindly write to the Attorne¶8m) behalf asking him to inform the UMELCO or myself in writing what the Crown intends to do with