由此
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
*
Q
R
S
(
T
U
S C. 224
445
PBC/21/7
1.
Bygt. could not be authorized to release a suspect arrested in comection with a particular case. He was asked whether he vent aquhers on the night, 'noring of the 30th/Bst July 195 - is. iam claimed privilege, He was asked whether as present when UNG
Aang was arrested and we again clained privilege. He was asi: 1 whether he new E Chrung. r, 1 clained privilege, He was asked then and where Tin Strme vas arrested and whether he was present when Olumg vas arrested. Hr. 101 claived privilege to all these ques- ticks. He was asked whether after YIK Chung's arrest he was takon to the Wanchai Police Station and whether he was subsequently released by the police. 10. IKM claimed privilege. He was asked whether den Pall. € was released by the police, on the 31st July, 1973 this police had any evidence against P.M. and the others. . HOK chained privile“. He was asked if he gave the order for the arrest of 121 Chury; on the 31st July, 1973 and fir. NOR claimed privilego. He ras asd whether the 1st accused was responsible for interrogating FX Chung after he had been arrested, Mr. 10K clained privilege. kelibat P. 3, the Wanchai Rpat book indicates that YIK Chung was released at 14.35 hours on the 31st July, 1973 after enquiries". 1. 10A vas asked 1. the 1st and 2nd accused were dooply involved ind the conduct of the murderivestigation and lir. OK again clained. privilege. Le was asked in the 2nd accused vas the person responcible for intervieving UKC Wing-sang and Mr. CK claimed privilege. He ves eskod whether, when he ret the 1st accused on the night of the 30th July, 1973 he imer the 1st accused had just come from the Harbour Hotel and br. CK claimed privilege.
The
A document, Lxhibit A. 1 was produced by counsel. original of that documert, an entry in the notebook of the 2nd accused, was not produced as it uns no longer available but a photostatic coy van produced by consent and marked Exhibit A. 1(1). This entry incluidos à statouent by. MUG Wing-sang signed by him. LOUNG adicted baking the statement in Exhibit A. 1(a) and signing his male with a fictitious nano, 1300 Wang, but he said he made that statu..ent, not at the time and place recorded in thibitA. 1(A) but two or three days after his arrest. CILAN Loi-fat testified that at about 10.00 a.3. on the 31st July, 1973 he went to the Wanchai Police Station where he went into a roon with the 2nd accused and
1813. The 2nd accused aslted LIVING to "uake up a story" and he coached Tant to make a statement involving the two names beginning with Tai. At first Cell thought Exhibit A. 1(1) was the notebook he saw LEUNG sig: his hane in but it subsequently appeared he was not at all sure. 20e testified that he could not remember whether he had made another Satement between his arrest on the 31st July, 1973 and two or three dars later, when he Lade and signed hibit A. 1(A). The case diary indicates that at 10.16 hours on the Ast July, 1973 an uncautioned sta.elent vas teliva from MANG. This is no evidence as to who took: that cautioned statorent, if it, in fact, was taken.
፡
15. Kul said the words appearing in Exhibit . 1(1) witnessed by Chief Inspector 1 San-tin.CL.36 hours were enritten by lån, as was his rane and rank and that he was in the The How Police Station at the time. He said the date and time shown on bibit A. 1(A) were correct, but when asked to tell the comt of the circumdances which led him to sign that document ir. In clained privilege. He was asked whether the preceding entry Gescumably that made by UTC) which he purported to witness was sale at the time and place stated and Mr. A claimed privilege.
D
E
F
G
H
K
L
M
P
Q
R
00
S
T
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.