由此
A
B
C
D
E
F
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
C
Q
R
S
T
U
S.C. 224
263/21/17
accused is under any obligation, to any extent, to prove his impcrncu. I have considered the ridence against cach accused separately in respect of each offence.
ir. Nguyen, very properly, drew my attention to discre- pancils in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. I must bear in mind, however, that both the witnesses for the Crown and for the dofence were testifying to events which occurred over three years
I must also bear in mind that some vitnesses have good povers of observation and recollection and others who are less gifted in that regard. I an not suggesting that discrepancies may not provide, a Taluable method in the evaluation of credibility, but such dis- crepancies, whether in the evidence adduced by the Crown or by the dofence, must be carefully szerined in the circumstances and contact of sach case and the judge must consider whether, having regard to the deneanour of the witnesses, the lapse of time and other factors, the discrepancies are, in fact, more real than apparent and whether they can be explained by partially raulty memories, lack of conscion- tionenebs to Lattors of detail (frequently of trivial nature) or hether they indicat, or suggest fabricatio None of the discre- pancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, excluding, of course, the evidence of those witnesses for the Crom which I have already mentioned I place no reliance on, related, in my opinion, to cvidence which I considered it to the root of the conspiracy chan e in this case,
I have carefull considered the whole of the evidence and the submissions made by counsel for the Crown and counsel for tho defence, including Mr. Nguyen's submission of what he ter od Mew compromise version and I have come to the conclusion that, vithout my doubt the 1st and 2nd accused in a room at the Harbour Hotel en the night of the 30th of July, 1979 met with LEUNG and the otar persons Laned in the particulars of offence to the 1st change and that there the 1st accused offered LEUNG $10,000 if he would adit to a charge or charges of wounding in respect of the Cactus incident and assure the solo responsibility for the attack on the Cactus Apartment House in return for $10,000 and a promise to release) the turnty odd persons arrested in connection with that attack including such persons as mar laro participated in the attack. I am satis- fied that LANG and the other persons present, including the 2nd accused, agreed to that course of action and intended that that agreement should be carried out. I an satisfied, though it formed no necessary mat of the Crown's case that the agreement was, in fact, carried ort, that, pursuant to the agreement, 310,000 was paid to LEUNG's
other on his behalf and twenty odd arrested persons were released. by the police on th: 3st July, 1973 and no further persons vero arrusted in respect of the Cactus Apartment House attack, apart from the shan arrest of TI Ohrung, until a special squad formed this your and encluding members of the Wanchai C.I.D., arrested six persons (inclnling P.M. 6) in somnection with the Cactus Apartment House attack. I an satisfied that BURG's arnost vas e shan and that after his "most", without any real precations for security, ho vas taken to various places including the Chews Lok Bathhouse, the lathan Restaurant and his hole at which places he associated with his friends and I am ratisiied plet for about & veek after his armest he was taken Jan nals to the Harbour Hotel again without any real sccurity precautions.
I a satisfied that the purpose of the agreement
H
K
I
M
N
P
Q
R
S
T
U
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.