TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 30

39

20.

膂

37

38

Mr. Hompton: Motion to make that conspiracy charge be quashed. Lest it be thought that I am again covering ground which was covered

before Judge Jones. I would distinguish present situation from that

which obtained on day of applications to His Honour. At that time if Your Honour will recall from notes a Summary of Evidence had been

supplied but trial had not commenced and in His Honour's mind no

doubt was his ruling that all the witnesses might be interviewed

by defence. Now I submit is proper time to make this motion because defence and Court are in possession of all what may not be

properly given by way of particulars, always possible that between

date of ruling and today, particulars might voluntarily have been

supplied. It was always possible that further particulars might

have been obtained from the witnesses at interview it was always

possible that in my friend's opening, particulars might be supplied.

Upon my learned friend's announcement "I call my 1st witness"

the matter is put beyond doubt that defence are to get nothing more

in the way of information on these charges, I an of course concentrating

on the 1st Charge. That charge is so vague and uncertain as not to

give reasonable information to the Accused as to what they are facing.

S

Only reference made by my learned friend on his opening was this: "Crown alleges that both 2 accused and their co-conspirators obstructed

the course of public justice by permitting these establishments - illegal

establishments to flourish within that Division for such extended period

pų.? of time. Summary of Evidence was surely rather different

page 24.

PH10. Only reference I can see to alleged participation of 2 accused.

Defence left completely in the dark as to what Crown's allegation against them is in this conspiracy charge whether they turned a blind

eye to what was going on but knew all about it, whether they actually stopped prosecutions, whether they gave warning of raids, whether they breached their duty as police officers in not arresting the sergeants, in not arresting themselves. Presentations are again clear beyond peradventure that charge does not give accused any information as to what they are facing, far less reasonable information. Not appropriate point to comment but as it has been raised briefly by prosecution and

Court is the extreme prejudice which must flow to accused from a joint

trial of these charges. Separate trials would have been perfectly easy for the prosecution. Charge is vague end wanting in particulars

and unfair to accused.

Page 30Page 31