TNAG-0683-FCO40-832-Political-aspects-of-administration-of-justice-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 420

684

685

686

429

}

406.

let there is extraordinary allegation of Lau Cheong Wa and the first person he paid was ADS and according to Lau there was a scheme to go Oli paying. hat for? One might argue 2D could have had some influence

when DS was sick. why choose man who unlikely would be able to help you very much or unlikely to help in evil schemes. Lau's story just does not make sense and is not true.

on raids or done the unusual

One matter concerning the drafts much was made of the 2 microfilm

letters said to have come from the 2D, No proof if such letters did

exist, they came from or even signed by the 2nd Defendant. Proof neens Legal proof. Un matter of drafts from Hang Seng Jan,uen and Cheung are co-conspirators and therefore under section 22 - he would

be a person falling within sub-section 3 of section 22 of Evidence Ordinance as he would have intention to conceal or misrepresent the facts. Re tong Chi Keung only 1 of the Crown vitnees had mentioned him (P/14). nic evidence is in direct conflict with the ong brothers. P5 to P.14 great deal of unreliable and untruthful evidence. whole prosecution case is built on a number of most unreliable untrustworthy people.

Section 14 charge. Associate myself with points raised by Mr. Hampton. They also apply to my client. Slight difference on reasonable excuse. y client given 14 days to reply to notice. Presumably apart from what Mr. Hampton has raised complaint is that he did not list in his alleged statutory declaration any of the draft. produced by the Crom. when he said was shown in ara.3.

Perfectly reasonable excuse not disputed they were not in his favour. He was only given 14 days and bank accounts were in England. Unfair to expect him to list these drafts even if he had them in 14 days. Unfair to prosecute 1D under Crimes Ordinance. When the notice

served on 1st and 2nd defendants.

Finishes up. "Guilty of offence under section 14/3". Unfair to use declaration in conspiracy charge.

Arguable because it is a draconian law and restricted to offences and punishments provided under the Ordinance. Notice served on 2D it went considerably further it should in information

it

than

it demanded.

Court should try to construe that section as strictly as possible and

not as widely as possible. Notice was bad on the face of it. Submit that 20 has not committed any offence under section 14.

Page 420Page 421