TNAG-0555-FCO40-650-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 106

4.

due to witnesses who were Chiu Chow with little Punti having been interviewed by non Chiu Chow speaking police officers, and that the witnesses who had been injured, were confused when making statements shortly after the attack. A further possible explanation is that

when most of the statements were made the witnesses did not know that

anyone had been killed in the attack. Further the evidence disclosed

that Chiu Chow people like to resolve disputes amongst themselves

without involving the civil authorities. The jury were fully instructed

by me as to the danger of acting upon the evidence of witnesses who had

made previous inconsistent statements, unless they found a satisfactory

explanation of the inconsistencies. FONG Chong-ming and NG Lee-kin suggested various reasons why the witnesses might conspire to falsely

identify them as participants in the attack. The suggested reasons were largely based upon the history of ill feeling between the Chengs and the Fongs. Clearly the jury were satisfied that the identifications

of FONG Chong-ming and NG Lee-kin by the prosecution witnesses were

reliable.

FONG Chong-ming who said he is aged 35 years gave evidence

and called witnesses to establish an alibi. He said that at the time

of the attack he was staying on Lamma Island.

rightly rejected this story.

The jury in my view

NG Lee-kin who gave his age as 30 years suffers from

tuberculosis. He said in evidence that at the time of the alleged attack he was in the area of Lo Fu Ngam Resettlement Estate to keep

an appointment with his girlfriend. He says that he was there set upon

by a gang of robbers who chopped him and that he thereafter found

himself in Queen Elizabeth Hospital. He could not recollect how he

got there. There is no doubt that he was admitted to Queen Elizabeth

Hospital about 1.30 a.m. on 10th September 1973 suffering from a

laceration to the head and a deep cut on the back. He discharged himself from 'hospital on 13th September 1973 against the doctor's

advice and before the sutures had been removed. The prosecution

suggest that his injuries were inflicted during the course of the

attack the subject matter of the charges and that perhaps he was

mistakenly struck by fellow attackers. The prosecution case was that

he later went to hospital as he required medical attention but that he

discharged himself from hospital at the earliest possible moment in order