TNAG-0552-FCO40-647-Allegations-of-corruption-and-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-police-an-1975 — Page 34

Mr J.V. Prendergast, Director of Operations Independent Commission Against Corruption Hutchison House, 7/F Hong Kong

Dear Sir,

BY HAND

Pun Ting Châu

Fl. 1022 Bell House Blk.A

525-543 Nathan Rd. Kowloon, Hong Kong

5th Oct. 1975

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

Secretariat, Hong Kong Government. AC/MRB/891/73 of ICAC.

Criminal Case VCC 241/74 of the

Victoria District Court, Hong Kong.

I refer to the statement which I gave your Mr P.E. Davey and my letter dd. 1st Oct. 1975 relating to the above case.

I should like to present in more logical sequence and in greater detail the reasons why I believe that there could have been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in the above case, attributable to outside influence and such factors as money, gifts etc. as follows:-

1. In the case, one judge of integrity convicted the defendants on the strong evidence

of guilt against them, but two other crooked judges set them free on a probability which even a layman in the street knows is quite unjustifiable.

2. The issue on which the convictions of the defendants were set aside was concerned with the qualification of Senior Superintendent J.P. MacMahon to give evidence during the trial.

But, the fact remains that everyone in Hong Kong knows that there is no other person with better qualification than Senior Superintendent J.P. MacMahon to give evidence on Tin Sin Kuk swindles in his capacity as head of the Triad Society Bureau and the General Investigation Office---the latter being a special unit of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force which has the intelligence and techniques to tackle Tin Sin Kuk swindles. In a conversation with me in 1974, Mr B.A. Sceats, the assistant to the Attorney General, commended Senior Superintendent J.P. MacMahon as "the best investigator in the police force." 3. The "verdict" of

and

is contrary to a legal precedent in

the law history of Hong Kong(criminal case KCC 106/73 in which a rank and file police officer gave evidence on Tin Sin Kuk swindles for the Crown in the same capacity as that of Senior Superintendent J.P. MacMahon).

4. The "verdict" of

and

was couched in ambiguous terms

and the "ground" on which they allowed the appeal of the defendants was in the nature of a probability in which indications of the conspiracy as aforesaid were self-evident. 5. The outcome of the relevant legal proceedings in the above case is quite unnatural. 6. The interest of the 100 plus Tin Sin Kuk swindle rackets in Hong Kong will be best

served by the "verdict" of

add

insofar as it will make

future prosecutions of Tin Sin Kuk offences in Hong Kong extremely difficult or, what is worse, almost impossible.

7. The "verdict" of

and

has the effect of absolving a number of other swindlers/conspirators involved in the above case, directly and indirectly, from criminal prosecution, including some plaincloth detectives of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force who are behind Tin Sin Kuk swindle rackets in Hong Kong. 8. The "verdict” df

has the added effect of reviving the Tin Sin Kuk swindling profession as a whole, and covering up, once and for all, cases of conspiracy, corruption and protection racketeering on the part of some Chinese C.I.D. officers of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force.

and

9. The "appeal” was heard on 24th July and 25th July 1975 under ref. no. 345/75 in the

3rd court of the Supreme Court Bldg. Hong Kong by 3 judges, including Huggins, Mc- Mullin and Trainor, but the verdict" was pronounced forty-six(46) days afterwards, on 8th Sept. 1975, with only Huggins and McMullin sitting on the bench. 10. At the trial in the Victoria District Court,

sung aus, a solicitor, represented the 1st and 2nd defendants while Denis Chang, a barrister, appeared for the 3rd defendant upon instructions from Tong Man Chan, of Tong & Ip, solicitors, who was briefed by

las well. In fact, all 3 defendants approached

in the

first instance following on their arrest in Oct. 1974. 11. A.J. Sanguinetti, a barrister, who was formerly a member of the judiciary, was instructed

by

to prepare the appeal and appear for all 3 defendants in the Supreme

Court.