TNAG-0682-FCO40-831-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 85

11

' and the impropriety of using answers to section 14 notice under the Bribery

Ordinance to connect the numbered U.K. Bank Accounts with the defendant Cunningham. However, whilst attacking Lau's evidence, no reference was made to the findings of the Commission of Enquiry, obviously quite deliberately.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeals in term which, for our present purposes, were not completely satisfactory. If the judgment is examined having reference to the portions under-lined it would appear that

the Court came to the conclusion that even without the evidence of Lau, a conviction must have followed or the proviso been applied. However, if the evidence is examined along the lines set out in annex 'C', that conclusion is not necessarily

correct.

Whatever the position may be in relation to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, there has been a subsequent event which causes further concern and certainly was not before the Court of Appeal. Lau was charged and convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in relation to the Leung Wing Sang case, perjury for his evidence in the Commission of Enquiry and, most important, perjury for his evidence in the Cunningham Thompson case. The perjury found against Lau in the Cunningham Thompson trial was that he had lied

to the Court when he denied the suggestion of defence counsel of a meeting between

himself, Leung Wing Sang and others prior to Leung's arrest on the murder charge.

Lau was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment in his absence, he having failed to

answer his bail during the course of the trial. He has not yet been arrested

and is believed to have escaped the jurisdiction.

There can be no doubt that even without Lau's evidence there was

ample evidence, provided one accepts the Full Court's ruling that there was no impropriety in using the answers given in reply to a section 14 notice in a common law charge of conspiracy upon which to convict. Unfortunately, the trial Judge did not approach the case in this way, and it is impossible to say

that he would have convicted had Lau not given evidence. Nor might there be any problem if the Full Court clearly and broadly stated that Lau's evidence

was irrelevant in its view.

(M. Lucas)

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.