TNAG-0682-FCO40-831-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 84

10

an

Not surprisingly, the defence in the trial was two pronged. On the one hand, an attack on Lau Cheung Wah and on the other, attempt to prevent any connection being made between the bank drafts purchased and the defendants.

Lau's evidence was attacked on a number of separate grounds.

These included the fact that he was an admitted corrupt police officer,

having previously pleaded guilty to corruption and sentenced to one years

imprisonment the fact that he was an accomplice: the fact that he had

sworn a false affidavit in the matter of his father's estate: the fact

that the plea in mitigation made by his Counsel in his own trial had

contained untruths: the fact that he had granted an immunity to testify

and that, therefore, his evidence could not be accepted as it gave

him a greater incentive or motive to give false evidence : finally, that he had framed a man called Leung Wing Sang who had been convicted-

of murder in a case investigated by Láu.

·

:.

The learned trial Judge in his judgment (which is attached hereto

and marked 'A') when convicting the two defendants specifically dealt with to all these allegations against Lau and discounted them all before accepting Lau's evidence. Unfortunately, he went so far as to suggest

that there was absolutely no truth in the allegations made against Lau

in relation to the Leung Wing Sang case.

Following the conviction of Cunningham and Thompson, so much controversy surrounded the conviction of Leung Wing Sang that His Excellency the Governor appointed His Honour Judge T.L. Yang to conduct a Commission of Enquiry into these allegations. Lau gave evidence in that Commission of Enquiry and was totally disbelieved by Commissioner Yang. The Commissioner found that although Lau had not "framed" Leung Wing Sang, the arrest of Leung Wing Sang had been arranged by Lau with a number of triad members involved in the killings, and it had been agreed that Leung would give

himself up for what was then classified as a wounding charge and, in return,

Lau and his Police colleagues would not seek to arrest the others involved.

Subsequent to the Commission of Enquiry findings Cunningham and Thompsons appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal (a copy of which judgement as attached hereto and marked 'B'). The convictions were attacked inter alia on two grounds the unsatisfactory nature of Laufis evidence