TNAG-0682-FCO40-831-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 87

2

given on the conspiracy charge end since the second charge arose out of the facts of the first, it does not appear that there was prejudice to the defence by virtue of the charge of conspiracy not being tried separately. We are unable to say that the original District Court Judge, who declined to order separate trials, exercised his discretion incorrectly.

In regard to the appellants' contentions that the learned judge should have ordered the Crown to give particulers of the overt acts of conspiracy relied upon and that, after the stage at which the names of thirteen further alleged co-conspirators had been added to the Particulars of Offence a new trial should have been ordered, we are of the view that these would have been the better courses. But we find ourselves unable to say that the fact that neither such course was adopted resulted in such prejudice to the defence as to justify allowing this appeal upon either or both of those grounds.

Having given careful consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that there was adequate direct evidence to sustain these convictions. It came from LA Cheong-va and CHENG Cheuk-fun who were both at the heart of the offence; indeed Lau is one of the station sergeants named in the charge as a co-conspirator. Lau gave evidence of a conversation he had with the first appellant upon the very day. that the latter was posted to the Bay View Division as the officer- in-charge there. In the course of that conversation Lau asked the first appellant whether the latter would be interested in getting some extra income and the first appellant then asked how much Lau could give him.

Lau told him that the C.I.D. of Bay View could pay him $40,000 per month and that the condition for such payment was that the first appellant would not raid the "stalls" from which the money emanated but would give prior notice if he felt it necessary to carry out any raids when a false stall would be organized for the purpose of being raided. The first appellant expressed himself satisfied with the arrangment proposed and wrote an address on a sheet of paper which he handed to Lau with the instruction to remit money every month to the address on the paper. Lau's only recollection of the contents of the gaps that the first line read "C.J.M. Cunningha" and that the last line rund either anchester" or "ianchester Field". Subsequently when CHIU Tek, another of the station sergeants mention.d