Reference.
B
C
switch it off.
5. In July 1989 Mr Hung petitioned the Governor alleging that unfounded disciplinary charges were laid against him by
the Commissioner of Correctional Services, as a means of
career persecution and mental torture. (In a previous
memorandum to the Governor of May 1988, before the
disciplinary enquiry, Mr Hung claimed that his career had
taken a serious downturn since the appointment of the new Commissioner. He attributed this to his friendship with the
previous commissioner with whom the new Commissioner had
been at loggerheads). Mr Hung's petition was rejected by the Governor in October 1989. Mr Hung also petitioned the
Secretary of State in August 1989 against the findings of
the disciplinary enquiry held in December 1988.
Mr Hung
alleged that the Investigating Officer had failed to take
account of his reasonable motives for using the tape
recorder and that there was no evidence that he had been
asked not to use it. ún the advice or the Hong Kong
Government, this petition was also rejected.
6. In his petition to the Queen, Mr Hung asks for the
findings of the disciplinary enquiry against him to be
reviewed. Mr Hung claims that the disciplinary enquiry was
unfairly executed and that he was not given an opportunity
to plead in mitigation in the disciplinary proceedings.
Our Legal Advisers have stated that there does indeed seem
to have been a defect in the proceedings with regard to
this. However, they take the view that Mr Hung was not
prejudiced by this. He was given a severe reprimand which is one of the least severe disciplinary awards which may be made. Mr Hung was also given ample opportunity to air mitigating factors in his case though not ones specifically
related to the award imposed at the hearing by the
Investigating committee.
He
7. Mr Hung also makes allegations of victimisation.
claims to have been the victim of a personal grudge between
WINAIZ/2
CODE 18-77
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.