TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 405

391.

414 414

653

654

Defener angement

This

fact are open equally to 2 inferences, one of guilt and one innocence Court should draw inference of innocence. Again, my learned friend says accused must have known that the drafts were funded from illegal sources.

coupled with his previous statement "must have know what was going on is saying in different words that the accused new that the illegal establishments were being protected but did nothing about it, thus not performing their duties as policemen. Again, accused must have known that payments to them were funded by their subordinates from illegal sources - nevertheless they did not take action against their subordinates thus failing to perform their duties as police officers in another way. Again it is equally open assuming any proof of payment to accused that by accepting payments irrespective of there they came from accused were failing in performance of their duty as police officers in yet another way and it can also be argued incident seven years ago when Mr. Morrison, Superintendent of Traffic, cut riding his motor cycle about his business had an accident and marched himself back to his office and duly charged himself with careless driving. I suppose the prosecution says if accused had accepted payments they should charge themselves and if they did not do so they would have failed to perform their duties, fermutations

are still endless at the end of this trial. This is what conspiracy is all about. There must be a common design common purpose and it must be a design by different numbers and precision as to be in reality common. we could not for instance if one person is an expert pickpocket in Kowloon and the other a drug manufacturer in Yuen Long, aware of each other's activities, charge them with conspiracy together to break the laws of the Colony they are doing it - there is no such conspiracy. Here again we are talking about failing to do one's duty as a police officer. Deliberate absence of leave without authority when he ought to be on duty and Lau protecting illegal establishments in Shaukiwan you can't charge both together as conspiring together not to do their duty because although their activities can come under one all- embracing category there is no common design. If all the evidence is

accepted anddrawn all the inferences in this case, there is no common purpose. Lau's purpose was to get money from his protected establishments in Shaukivan and Uncle Luk's purpose was to take his share of profits or salary. Presumably ria Hak hing's purpose was more or less the same as Lau's but restricted to his establishments in Day View. It might possibly be said an assumption drafts sent to D1 was to conceal certain

www

-

Page 405Page 406

415