Surt of Jeff Tso
213
11.
12.
After the case was reported, CID Wan Chai initiated enquiry and attempted to locate Jeff, but without success.
On 20 October, in order to assist the Commission, Chief Inspector MacKillop was instructed to assist the CID Wan Chai in locating Jeff. The next day (21 October), he approached Jeff's "godfather", who agreed to arrange for the voluntary surrender of Jeff to the SIU. Later that day, the "godfather" rang MacKillop and said that Jeff was willing to surrender himself, provided that he would not be handed over to the Commission's Investigator. At 11.30 p.m. the same day, by arrangement the "godfather" accompanied Jeff to meet Chief Inspector MacKillop, Inspector Tse Keung and S/Sgt. Leung Sze-piu at the Empress Hotel. Jeff was immediately handed into the custody of CID Wan Chai. Jeff admitted to the Police, under caution, that he had stolen the guards' property "to cause trouble" and claimed that he had dumped all of it into the sea (including the cash), except the pair of shoes which he wore until he surrendered himself to the Police. None of the other property was recovered.
13.
Jeff was subsequently prosecuted for the offences of theft. He pleaded guilty before the Magistrates Court at Causeway Bay on 17 November 1980 and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years (plus payment of compensation, by instalments, totalling $4,300, to the guards). As to mitigation, the prosecuting Counsel, Mr. F. Stock, conceded that Jeff should be dealt with on the basis that there came a time, whilst at the hotel when Jeff asked to leave and was refused permission so to do.
Alleged False Imprisonment
14.
When Jeff was questioned by the Police on the theft charges, he complained that he had not been told about the offer of protection and was lured to the hotel room on the pretext of its congeniality for a meal. He also alleged that, whilst in the Lee Gardens Hotel, he had twice asked to be allowed to leave, but was stopped by Michael Cheng. However, Jeff was allowed to return a telephone call to his "godfather", who paged him through the pager, in the evening of 4 October. The "godfather" asked Jeff where he was, but Jeff did not tell him. Jeff alleged that Kwok and Cheng signalled him not to tell.
15.
In a statement dated 23 October 1980 given to the Police, Reeder stated that he had given specific instructions to John Kwok that:---
(a) Jeff was a witness and accepted protection voluntarily;
(b) the guards should report to him, or Carratu, immediately should anyone attempt to contact Jeff;
(c) the guards on night duty would be permitted to sleep, provided the door was locked and they remained
dressed; and
(d) any untoward incidents should be reported to him or Carratu immediately.
Reeder also stated that he asked John Kwok to repeat the instructions to him to ensure that he (Kwok) fully understood before relaying these instructions to the guards. When Reeder gave evidence to the Commission, he said that he had also told Kwok what to do if Jeff wanted to leave, namely, to ask him to remain until the guards had spoken to Reeder or Carratu, but that if Jeff insisted on leaving he should not be prevented from doing so. Both Kwok and Cheng denied having received such instructions from Reeder. Kwok claimed that Reeder only asked him to arrange the guards to protect Jeff and he (Kwok) did not, therefore, give any instructions to the guards as to what to do if Jeff wanted to leave.
16.
It is difficult to believe that Reeder, being a very experienced ex-Police Officer, had not given any instructions at all to the guards as to what should be done if Jeff insisted on leaving. As Michael Cheng admitted in his own statement that he had stopped Jeff from leaving on two occasions (but the times given by him of Jeff's requests to leave differed substantially from those given by Jeff), then either the guards misunderstood Reeder's instructions or they wilfully disobeyed such instructions. However, in view of the statement of Kwok, it is probable that Cheng did what he did without any proper instructions given to him as to what he should do if Jeff wanted to leave.
17.
Having given very careful consideration to the case, the Legal Department advised on 12 December 1980 that no further action should be taken in relation to Jeff's allegation of false imprisonment.
18. A few days before Legal Department advised no further action in respect of Jeff's allegation, Jeff appeared before the Commission to give evidence. His statements and evidence were so inconsistent and untrue on matters of importance that they were considered to be not worthy of any credence whatsoever.
Conclusions
19.
It seems clear that Jeff did make allegations against Inspector Tin in his statement to Reeder and that a dialogue then took place between Jeff and Reeder, through an interpreter, as a result of which Reeder genuinely believed that Jeff
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.