TNAG-0682-FCO40-831-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 88

3

in the charge was transferred to the Bay View Division, the instruction to remit money monthly was transferred to CHIU Tak who, upon the occasion of such remittances, would inform Lau thereof and request him to tell the first appellant that the remittence had been made. When eventually JIJ Tax was transferred and his post taken over by MA Hak-sking, the third named station sergeant, remittances were handled by ill Hak-shing. According to Lau the $40,000 p.m. vas actually paid to the first appellant by CHIU Tak and later by

A Hak-shing and sone $20,000 of this was contributed by Lau from his own area of the Division of Shaukiwen. This continued, to Lau's knowledge, until November 1972 when Lau was transferred to another

Division.

Lau's evidence in regard to the second appellant was to the effect that when the latter was first transferred to the Bay View Division as As-istant Divisional Superintendent in June 1971 (one month before the first date charged in the conspiracy charge) he vent to see the second appellant and asked him whether he was interested

in extra incorc. Fac second appellant asked how much" and was offered $10,000 per month which he accepted upon the same condition in regard to not raiding the stalls under Lau's protection. At the end of June 1971 $10,000 as accordingly paid to the second appellant and later, when Cm Pak vs transferred to the Division, Lau took him to see the second appellant who agreed that CIU Tak should continue the arrangment, Subsequently there was additional evidence that the pryzmts to the two appellants continued during the

period charged.

Predictably the evidence of both Lau and Chengwas attacked.

Both were accomplices and although Lau had been sentenced to a term of one year's imprisonment in respect of a charge under s.10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), both had been

offer d annusty in regard to any further possible proceedings against either arising from these transactions. It was alleged by fir. Scrivener

that the trial julge did not weigh the question whether the amn.sty

was a strong inducalent to those two witnesses to give untruthful

evidence along the lines which the Crown wished to h.ar. This is

not an argua nt which can carry any weight. Unhap-ily, the spate

of comuntion trials which ars been a feature of the work of the

District Courts in Fong Kong during the nest two years or so has led