4
QEE ANNEY
}
Léfi 1/e/ir
1/4/511
www
whether in the lught of them he would have been treated by
the Court as a credible witness at the trial of Cunningham
and Thompson even though in other respects he was already known to be a thoroughly dishonest and disreputable man. The fact is, of course, that I do not believe that the Crown
would have tendered him at all had the convictions for conspiracy and perjury been recorded before the trial of Cunningham and Thompson.
After most anxious consideration with two of my senior colleagues, both with great experience in the criminal law, I advised the Governor, as I have said, that the proper course is to refer the case of the two police officers to the Court of Appeal under section 83P of the Criminal
Procedure Ordinance.
In doing so, I said that it would be our intention, if the case were referred, to argue that there was sufficient evidence apart from LAU's evidence to justify the convictions, which should not therefore be regarded as either unsafe or
unsatisfactory.
I enclose the transcript of the trial of Cunningham
and Thompson, the Judge's reasons for verdict and the judgment of the Court of Appeal. I also enclose a copy of the Judge's reasons for verdict on LAU's trial for conspiracy and perjury, and a note by one of my colleagues summarising the evidence against Cunningham and Thompson. I further enclose a copy of my minute to the Governor, and a copy of
Mr. Justice YANG's report.
You will see from my minute to the Governor that,
in recommending a reference, I have applied a fairly stringent
test. I believe, in the circumstances of a mess such as this, that a high degree of certainty that the Court of Appeal would uphold the convictions is necessary before I should be justified in advising against a reference.
I would add two further points
not really relevant.
though they are
(a) None of us has any doubt at all as
guilt of the two police officers.
to the actual
None of us
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.