TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 400

409

644

645

385.

have heard inaccurate gossip which is put forward us truth. My learned friend has touched on these surprising discrepancies very

lightly as if to dispose of as if to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Luu had inside information and was telling the truth.

what does my learned friend dredge up as an answer. Le produces like a conjurer, the initial "M and a piece of paper. If you are going to

invent a story that someone gave you his name and address of his bank

account I venture to believe that he would not chisel it on a flat stone

and handed it to you or that he typed it on a piece of wood.- obvious

and natural thing to do was to write it on a piece of paper if it were true. This in itself cannot be corroboration of Lau's testimony.

Initial M my learned friend says it would appear D1 las normally

used only 2 names C.J." and his full initials are "C.........“

Lau get from? He says it was never put to any of the ICAC witnesses

that this was fed to Lau. low could it be the cross-examiner

is bound not to put something to a witness unless he has instructions

that that is the actual situation. To digress, this is the reason for

defence adjournment to enquire into the murder case so that statements could be put to Lau. how could defence be in possession of evidence that it was fed to Lau? Same restriction can-/ apply to Your Honour.

Your Honcur can yourself can consider gap of 9 months between Lau's

incarceration and this trial the numerous visits paid to him by

-

not

where did

ICAC officers and without suggesting anything sinister it was deliberately fed to him it was highly possible. When D1 had been subject of inter-

view and conversation that his name and proper initials were mentioned.

That is even more to the point is from date of their arrest sometime

in September each appearance in Court these 2 de fendants became headline

matter for the newspaper it was put to Lau in cross-examination he had access to newspapers and he had read all about this case. There is

the answer in relation to opportunity to become aware of this initial.

statement made by r. Sceats when dealing with this point, that Lau stated he made this disclosure to hiteley prior to arrest in February. (a) it does not appear in my notes if it did it would be self serving

and inadmissible and improper in view of fact that despite defence attempts of tape recordings put in this was vigorously opposed by Crown. They are now referring to some apparent inconsistency in referring

to an interview with whiteley. This must not be taken into account by

Your Honour in assessing the evidence. when delivers

to my