TNAG-2318-FCO40-3362-Petitions-from-members-of-the-public-regarding-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 8

NKC 236/

RECEIVED IN

18 MAR 1991

ULSK OFFICE.

・band GX

HA

FROM: G J Coglin

Hong Kong Department

DATE: 18 March 1991

Mr Stone

Mr Burns

MR HUNG KAI-MING: PETITION TO THE QUEEN

SEE

ANNEX

σ

A B

highlighted)

C

1. Your manuscript minutes of 3 March and 4 March refer. have consulted Legal Advisers on this case again. I attach

my minute of 6 March and Miss Brooks reply of 13 March.

2.

Para 2 of Miss Brook's minute deals with the procedural questions you raise in point 1 of your manuscript minute of 4 March. In summary she confirms that what I proposed was

in order.

I

3. As regards point 3 of your minute there was indeed a defect in the disciplinary proceedings. From the Explanatory Notes on Procedure at Disciplinary Hearing no 10 (flag K), it is evident that Mr Hung should have been given the chance to plead in mitigation after the charges were found proven but before punishment was awarded. However Miss Brooks takes the view that Hung was not prejudiced by

this (Miss Brooks minute of 6 February refers). I agree

that it would be worthwhile to draw this oversight to the attention of the Hong Kong Government. Although the officer involved did submit a written representation, this clearly

seems to have been done before he knew he would be found

guilty on two fo the four counts. Should we wish to challenge the Hong Kong Government's recommendation on this case however, a submission from you to the Secretary of State would be required.

SALAAU/1

сс