TNAG-0684-FCO40-833-Representations-about-Mr-Christopher-Clements-facing-murder--1977 — Page 100

2

-

The

next room was not the basis of the prosecution case. The purpose was to tape the voice of the accused for comparative purposes. What was actually said is of no significance. prosecution case depends significantly on tapes recorded in Canada by the Canadian law enforcement people and the prosecution will seek to prove that the voice is that of the same person. I am informed that Mr. Crowder did object to the admissability of the evidence but the magistrate admitted it.

The real point is of course that Mr. Clements is yet to be tried and if there are any allegations concerning irregular or improper police procedures in relation to the case against him, then there will be opportunity for them to be raised at the committal proceedings or the trial if he is committed for trial.

I don't understand what Mr. Stainton means when in paragraph 4 it is said that "the prosecution's papers are produced very tardily." I can only say that if he is criticising prosecuting counsel from this Department, I do not accept his criticism as valid. In any event, the criticism has no rele- vance to the case of Mr. Clements, who faces committal proceedings, a principal purpose of which is to give pre-trial notice of the case against him. There are no prosecution papers that the prosecution must provide before the committal proceedings begin.

Again I am not sure what Mr. Stainton means when he refers to the "pressure of legal dates". Committal proceedings will begin on 10 June. If Mr. Clements is committed for trial, he will be tried before a jury in the Supreme Court some few months later. This will give ample time for him to apply for legal aid, assuming he wishes to do so, and for counsel and solicitors to be instructed on his behalf.

The above is by way of background and please come back to me if you would like more detail on any aspect. So far as a reply to Mr. Stainton is concerned, I hope that Lord Goronwy- Roberts would wish to respond firmly to such sweeping and unsubstantiated smears on the Police, the Legal Aid Department, the Hong Kong bar and our prosecuting counsel.

I do agree we should be helpful in relation to informing Mr. Stainton with respect to legal aid in Hong Kong. A direct comparison with England will not however be helpful to Hong Kong in that legal aid is not granted in Hong Kong in proceedings before magistrates (including committal proceedings) and in some cases before the District Court.

You might like to consider suggesting a reply along the following lines

I cannot accept "pretty worthless" as a fair description of legal aid in Hong Kong and suggest that the attached material provides persuasive evidence to the contrary.