The Queen v. Wan Hin-tak and Others

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CASES NOS. 166 AND 183 OF 1975 (CONSOLIDATED)

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Judge de Baste, Q.C. in Court

Date of Judgment: 12th May, 1976.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The first charge in this case relates to the 1st to 5th accused, who are jointly charged with conspiracy in that they with others named in that charge and with other persons unknown, on divers days between the months of August, 1972 and October, 1973, conspired to obstruct the course of justice in that the 2nd to 5th accused together with Wan Hin-kai, Huen Hung and other police officers unknown, should act contrary to their public duty as police officers in relation to the administration of the law.

2. The second charge relates to the 1st and 6th accused who are charged with conspiracy in that they together with Wan Hin-kai, Huen Hung, Yuen Ka-chai and Chan Lik-shan, on divers days between and including October. 1973 down to the present, conspired together to obstruct the course of public justice in relation to the investigation and prosecution of offences believed to have been committed by the said Wan Hin-kai and Huen Hung.

3. The third charge relates to the 6th accused who is charged with doing an act with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of an offender contrary to Section 90(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, namely, knowing or believing, on or about the 16th October, 1973 that Huen Hung, a then Inspector of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, had committed an arrestable offence, to wit, that the said Huen Hung was in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, did advise the said Huen Hung that in the event that the said Huen Hung be interviewed by the proper authorities to falsely state that monies held in and derived from account number 250111 with the Hang Seng Bank Limited, Kowloon City Branch, were profits derived from the operation of an off-course betting business with the intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of the said Huen Hung.

4. The 1st accused is, and was at material times, the Manager of the Kai Tak Amusement Park and a younger brother of Wan Hin-kai, a former Chief Inspector of Police who departed the Colony on the 18th October, 1973. Wan Hin-kai was the Officer Commanding of the Emergency Unit, Kowloon West (hereinafter referred to as "the Unit") from the 10th July, 1972 to the 28th June, 1973. His departure from the Colony on the 18th October, 1973 forms part of the Crown's case in the conspiracy alleged in the second charge. The 2nd accused is a Senior Inspector of Police in the Royal Hong Kong Police who was attached to the Unit from the 21st June, 1972 to the 20th August, 1973. The 3rd accused is a Station Sergeant of Police in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force who was attached to the Unit from the 9th April, 1973 to the date of his arrest on the 23rd September, 1975. The 4th accused is a Sergeant of Police in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force who was attached to the Unit from the 12th October, 1970 to the 1st May, 1974. The 5th accused is a Police Constable in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force who was attached to the Unit from the 28th September, 1971 to the 14th June, 1974. The 6th accused is and was at all material times a barrister practising at the Bar in Hong Kong. Huen Hung, a former Inspector of Police and a named co-conspirator in the first and second charges, was attached to the Unit from the 16th May, 1972 to the 29th June, 1973. Yuen Ka-chai was at all material times a Director of Skal Travel Services Limited. Chan Lik-shan was, until about August, 1974, a solicitors' clerk.

5. The offence of conspiracy was considered in England as early as the thirteenth century and there is no dearth of definitions of conspiracy, probably the most frequently quoted being that of Willes, J. in the case of Mulcahy v. The Queen (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306 at 317.

"A conspiracy consists of not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, premise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means."

6. R. v. Parnell (1881) 14 Cox C.C. 508 was a case where the accused and several others were charged with conspiracy to impoverish or injure landowners in Ireland by urging their tenants to withhold rents. The defence was that the conspirators had never even met, let alone entered into an agreement. The Court stated:

"..... there is no necessity that there should be express proof of a conspiracy such as that the parties actually met and laid their heads together, and then and there actually agreed to carry out a common purpose ..... It may be that the alleged conspirators have never seen each other, and have never corresponded, one may never have heard the name of the other and yet, by the law, they may be parties to the same common criminal agreement".

7. Mr. Chandler has made a brief reference to R. v. Meyrick and Ribuffi (1929) 21 Cr. App. R.94. Defence Counsel have referred to R. v. Griffiths et al (1961) 1 Q.B. 589 in which the Court held that the circle metaphor referred to in Meyrick's case (supra) was not applicable on the facts of that particular case, as in that case there was not one but possibly many conspiracies. In distinguishing Meyrick's case (supra) that Court said:

"It is material to mention that, in the Meyrick case, the conspiracy alleged was, as the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, in relation to a comparatively small geographical area, namely Soho. In view of the size and nature of the locality, there were clearly facts upon which a jury could come to the conclusion that the night club proprietors in that district well knew what was happening generally in relation to the police".

8. If the Court finds that in 1972/73 there existed a plot in Kowloon West whereby illegal establishments would not be raided by members of the Unit in return for payments of money to the Unit, it is obvious such a plot would not have been viable without Wan Hin-kai, the then Officer Commanding the Unit, securing the co-operation and agreement of very many, if not most, of his subordinates, and the irrestible inference is that those in the plot, even if they may never have known the identities of the other persons in the plot, must have been aware that many, if not most, of their colleagues in the Unit were similarly involved. Although the 1st accused was not a police officer, he maintained, on his own evidence, a close relationship with his brother, Wan Hin-kai, and saw him 2/3 times a week and even quite apart from the admitted fact that the 1st accused cashed, within a period of seven months, $668,000 on behalf of Wan Hin-kai, if the Court accepts other evidence adduced by the Crown relating to the 1st accused, it is again open to the Court to find as a fact, or at least to draw the irrestible inference, that the 1st accused must have known that the cheques received from his brother represented the proceeds of corrupt practices in the Unit of which his brother was Commanding Officer and that many, if not most, of his brother's subordinates were involved in those corrupt practices and that he knew he was a part to the plot and agreed to the pursuance of the common objective.

9. The conspiracy, the subject matter of the second charge, requires more specific consideration, for the common law offence of obstruction of justice has no clear limits. There are reported cases in which the circumstances proved have been held to constitute an obstruction of justice, but the expression "obstruction of justice", as far as I am aware, has never been defined. To that extent, Mr. Corrigan has submitted that if I were to find the 6th accused guilty on the second charge, I would be creating new law. Mr. Corrigan, in his excellent and detailed final address which, like those of all the other Counsel in this case, was reduced to writing, submitted, inter alia, that even if the 6th accused did suggest to Wan Hin-kai that he should depart the Colony, this was, at the most, merely an incitement, and that this suggestion, even if made, was not per so unlawful. The same argument would apply, presumably, to the alleged advice by the 6th accused to Huen Hung and his wife to leave the Colony "for a while". Mr. Corrigan made the point, attractive at first sight, that if a person who has committed an offence, takes steps to evade his apprehension or prosecution by departing the Colony, such departure would not of itself constitute an offence and, if that is so, Mr. Corrigan, in effect, asks 'how could another person giving that advice to the offender, himself be committing on offence?' In other words, if what an offender does after the offence has been committed is not an offence, how can advice by another person to do that very thing itself constitute an offence?

10. It is, of course, a fact that no person who has committed an offence, even a serious offence, can be charged with taking steps to impede his own prosecution or apprehension unless, of course, he unlawfully uses force. Thus, the disposal of the proceeds of a robbery and the weapon used during the robbery and the departure from the Colony of the robber (at least before his arrest) are not, in themselves, offences known to the law. This state of affairs no doubt reflects the appreciation both by the legislature and the judges that the instinct of self-preservation (including liberty of movement) is so strong in man, that such acts by an offender himself should not be regarded as crimes. But it is a very different matter for another person to advise the taking of steps to impede the apprehension or prosecution of an offender whom that other person knows or believes to have committed an offence.

11. Mr. Chandler for the Crown, in a most comprehensive review of the evidence and the law, quoted from the judgment in R. v. Sharpe and Stringer (1938) 26 Cr. App. R. 122 at 126:

"Public justice requires not only that people should not take steps to conceal a crime or destroy evidence once a summons has been served on somebody but also that every crime should be suitably dealt with and a man who obstructs public justice as soon as a crime is committed and endeavours to avoid the consequences of his wrongdoing by conspiracy with others is just as much guilty of an offence as if he waits until after proceedings are actually pending".

12. Section 90(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, provides that:

"If a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does, without lawful authority an excuse, any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence".

13. Wan Hin-kai, per se, committed no offence by departing the Colony. The same considerations would have applied if Huen Hung had succeeded in departing the Colony before his arrest. Huen Hung was arrested at the airport on the night of the 28th March, 1974. But if the court is satisfied that the 6th accused knew or believed Wan Hin-kai and/or Huen Hung was guilty of an arrestable offence and that, knowing or believing that, he proposed or suggested that he and/or they depart the Colony or take steps to depart the Colony, and that agreement was reached between the 6th accused and one or more of the persons named in the second charge or the Particulars of Offence relating thereto, that such proposals or advice be acted on, then the 6th accused (and the 1st accused if he was party to that agreement) would be guilty of the conspiracy the subject matter of the second charge. Apart from the 1st and 6th accused, all the persons who agreed that that arrangement should be acted on but who are not charged, would, of course, be co-conspirators and accomplices.

14. I will now deal with the question of the "agreement" ingredient in the crime of conspiracy.

15. For the purpose of the law of contract a person may be held to have agreed to something if he so acts that a reasonable observer would infer such agreement on his part, but the need for mens rea excludes the possibility of such imputation when conspiracy is charged. The Court must enquire whether the accused in fact agreed to the pursuit of the unlawful object (R. v. Thompson (1965) 50 Cr. App. R.1 #190;). Although whether a person has agreed to do something depends largely on his state of mind, it is nevertheless clear that even if the minds of several persons can be said to be "agreed" on the furtherance of an unlawful object, there can be no conspiracy until the fact of such agreement is manifested by some kind of physical communication between two or more of the parties, but it is important to note the limited nature of this proposition. The law does not require that the act of agreement take any particular form and the fact of agreement may be communicated by words or conduct. Thus, it has been held unnecessary to prove that the parties "actually came together and agreed in terms" to pursue the unlawful object (R. v. Murphy, supra); there need never have been an express verbal agreement, it being sufficient that there was "a tacit understanding between conspirators as to what should be done" (per Donovan, J., addressing the jury in the Hammersley case - see "The Brighton Conspiracy Case" (1958) Crim. L.R. 422, 437). Direct evidence of the act of agreement is rarely available and to prove the offence the prosecution will have to rely on evidence of acts of the various parties which are so related that it is reasonable to infer that they were done in pursuance of an agreement between those parties. It is quite clear that conspiracy can be sufficiently proved by circumstantial evidence even though the prosecution is unable to point to any particular moment or incident as marking the inception of the agreement (R. v. Pepper and Platt (1921) 16 CR. App. R.12).

16. As regards the granting of the immunity, Crown Counsel gave this is a short statement in unequivocal language on behalf of the Attorney-General. As was stated by Lawton L.J. in Reg. v. Turner & others (1975) 61 Criminal Appeal Reports 67:

"If the inducement is very powerful the judge may decide to exercise his discretion but when doing so he must take into consideration all factors, including those affecting the public. It is in the interests of the public that criminals should be brought to justice; and the more serious the crimes the greater is the need for justice to be done. Employing Queen's evidence to accomplish this end is distasteful and has been distasteful for at least three hundred years to judges, lawyers and members of the public".

17. Juries (and judges sitting without a jury) must carefully and anxiously weigh the quality of witnesses who have been granted immunity against the context of their testimony and also the nature of the arrangements made between such witnesses and the Crown.

18. The evidence in this case has involved some 53 hearing days. The Crown adduced evidence from 38 witnesses who produced over 300 exhibits. All six accused gave evidence and three of them called witnesses on their behalf.

19. Before dealing briefly with the Crown evidence against the accused in this case, I wish to say a few words on the question of discrepancies. Defence Counsel have referred, quite properly, to discrepancies in the evidence of a number of witnesses for the Crown, particularly Huen Hung, Chan Lik-shan and Yuen Ka-chai, especially in regard to the discussions in the 6th accused's flat in mid-October, 1973. I must bear in mind in respect of both Crown and Defence witnesses who testified to incidents which happened in 1972/73, that they were speaking of events which took place over three years ago. I must also bear in mind that some witnesses have good powers of recollection and others who are less gifted in that regard. I am not suggesting that discrepancies may not provide a valuable method in the evaluation of credibility, but such discrepancies, whether in the evidence adduced by the Crown or by the Defence, must be examined carefully in the circumstances of each case and the judge must consider whether, having regard to the demeanour of the witnesses and other factors, whether the discrepancies are, in fact, more apparent than real and whether they can be explained by partially faulty memories, lack of conscientiousness to matters of detail or whether they indicate or suggest fabrication.

20. I now propose to deal with some of the more salient aspects of the evidence, but it must not be assumed that because I have not referred some particular aspect of the evidence, that I have not considered the hole of the evidence in this case. Not only have I considered the whole of the evidence but I have carefully considered all the written submissions by Counsel for the Crown and Counsel for the Defence.

21. Yuen Ka-chai testified that on the 3rd August, 1972 he went with Wan Hin-kai, and at the latter's request, to the Kowloon City Branch of the Hang Seng Bank and there he opened an account in his own name, being account number 250111 and that, at the same time, he signed a document (Exh. P4C) headed "Authority for Third Party to Operate Current Account" whereby he designated Wan Hin-kai as an authorized signatory to that account. I accept that evidence. The reason advanced by Wan Hin-kai why he wanted an account opened in Yuen's name with authority for him to operate, was that he was a keen race-goer, that his wife had a ferocious temper, that he was afraid of his wife and when he won money at the races, his wife would take it all away from him. Yuen said he believed Wan Hin-kai but, in my view, a logical analysis of that explanation discloses its inherent falsity. The evidence before me indicates that that account was solely operated by Wan Hin-kai. Yuen Ka-chai never paid in, or withdrew, any monies from that account and no bark statements relating to that account were ever, according to Yuen, received by him. For purposes of convenience, I shall hereafter refer to that account as "the bogus account". Yuen testified that in August, 1973 he was a director of Skal Travel Services Ltd. and he took a tour party to Manila and, included in that party, were Wan Hin-kai and a man he came to know as Fung Kwok-leung. Yuen said that his tour party stayed at the Bayview Hotel in Manila and on the 3rd August, 1973 he was sitting at a table in the Coffee Shop of the Bayview Hotel together with Wan Hin-kai and Fung Kwok-leung. He heard Fung Kwok-leung say to Wan Hin-kai that some "companies" wanted squeeze money (Chinese "peen") to be reduced. Fung went on to say that some companies or shops wanted to offer smaller amounts of squeeze money. Wan Hin-kai replied that this could not be done, adding "You know this also, this is not for me alone". Yuen said Wan Hin-kai continued to say something more but he (Yuen) found this "uninteresting" and so he went up to his bedroom. Under cross-examination Yuen said he never connected, in his own mind, this reference to squeeze money with the fact he had opened an account solely for the use of Wan Hin-kai.

22. From its inception on the 3rd August, 1972 till the 18th October, 1973 (the date Wan Hin-kai left the Colony) when a cheque drawn by Wan Hin-kai on the 17th October, 1973 for $6,400 was paid, leaving a balance of $77.30, a total of $2,236,350.50 was injected into the bogus account of which $1,526.000 was injected by Fung Kwok-leung, a named co-conspirator in the Particulars of Offence relating to the first charge. The first payment by Fung Kwok-leung alias Fung leung was made on the 8th August, 1972 (i.e. 5 days after the opening of the bogus account) and the last deposit was made on the 15th October, 1973 (i.e. 3 days before Wan Hin-kai's departure from the Colony). Fung Kwok-leung was arrested at the airport on the 6th September, 1975 and, at the time of his arrest, he was found in possession, inter alia, of an airline ticket to Taipei and an entry permit to Taiwan. He was released on bail on the 8th September, 1975 he absconded on the 20th September, 1975.

23. Huen Hung testified that in September, 1972 he was a Police Inspector attached to the Emergency Unit Kowloon West. Kowloon West comprised Yaumati, Tsimshatsui, Mongkok and Shamshuipo. His superior officer was Wan Hin-kai who, sometime after he took over that posting, according to Huen Hung, said to him: "When you are dealing with those illegal activities outside, you must have my permission before you carry out your duty. As far as I am concerned, I will not ill-treat you - I will give you at least $5,000 a month". Huen Hung testified that Wan Hin-kai told him that this money was corrupt money derived from gambling, drug dens and other illegal establishments, although he never knew the names or addresses of the establishments from which squeeze money was collected. Whilst in that posting Huen Hung said he received 15 cheques from Wan Hin-kai, all drawn by Wan Hin-kai on the bogus account, most of which he gave to his wife to put in her own bank account and the remainder into his son's bank account. Wan Hin-kai told Huen Hung that he paid $1,000 a month to Station Sergeants and police officers attached to other Police Stations. Huen Hung testified that sometime between April and June, 1973 he was in Wan Hin-kai's office in the Unit when Wan Hin-kai handed three $500 notes to the 3rd accused with instructions that the 3rd accused should pay the money to other Station Sergeants. Huen Hung testified that on one occasion he paid money to a Station Sergeant (whose name he declined to divulge) on behalf of Wan Hin-kai. He told this Station Sergeant: "This is the money for you - monthly $1,000 - the money comes from gambling dens and illegal establishments. After you have taken the $1,000 and if you want to carry out something you must inform the platoon commander before carrying it out". Huen Hung was a platoon commander. Huen Hung said he could not remember when he first started accepting corrupt money because he had been 35 years in the Force. Huen Hung made no attempt to conce 1 the fact that he had been receiving corrupt money for very many years.

24. In or about June, 1973 Huen Hung was transferred from the Unit. He said that one or two months before mid-October 1973 he had been up to the Anti-Corruption Office where he made a statement in regard to an investigation of his affairs. Huen Hung said that before mid-October 1973 he went to the 6th accused's home on many occasions regarding the Anti-Corruption Office's investigations of his affairs.

25. Huen Hung testified that around mid-October 1973 when he was at home, Wan Hin-kai telephoned him and made an appointment for them to meet at the Windsor Restuarant in Waterloo Road. Huen Hung kept the appointment and there, at a very small table, he sat with Wan Hin-kai and his brother, the 1st accused.

26. As a result of the discussions at that meeting Huen Hung said he telephoned the 6th accused and said: "Tonight I would like to bring along a Chief Inspector Wan Hin-kai - we want to see you in regard to a little trouble we have".

27. Huen Hung said he and his wife went to the 6th accused's flat that same evening.

28. I now come to Crown evidence relating to the events of the 16th October, 1973. In relating the meetings at the 6th accused's home in mid-October, 1973 I shall deal mainly with Chan's evidence, but only because his evidence was given in great detail (Huen Hung stated in his evidence that at the meetings he concentrated on matters relating to his own problem) but I will indicate some of the more apparent discrepancies between his, Chan's, evidence and that of other Crown witnesses on these meetings. At the same time I will interpose some of the other Crown evidence which is apparently consistent with Chan's evidence.

29. A little after 6 p.m. on the 16th October, 1973 Chan who was a clerk then employed by Gunston & Chow, a firm of solicitors, received a telephone call from the 6th accused, who told Chan he was going to give him some "business", which Chan understood to mean a legal case, and the 6th accused asked Chan to go to his home a little after 8 o'clock that night. When Chan arrived, only the 6th accused was present. The 6th accused told Chan that Huen Hung was being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Office. The 6th accused added that, as a barrister, he could not interview clients by himself. The 6th accused continued: "Since you are working in a solicitor's firm that is why I am asking you to come along. I give you this business, treat it as though it was you who approached me". The 6th accused said this "business" might develop into a legal case in court. The 6th accused continued: "I cannot tell you what the magnitude of the work would be and I cannot tell how much money would be collected. For this business money must be collected, but Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung are my good friends. It is embarrassing for me to receive payment from them directly. After completion of the case, my expenses and your expenses would be deducted and then, as to the balance, I will take 70% and you take 30% because I introduced this business to you". When asked what he intended doing with this 30% Chan replied: "That would be my personal share". To Mr. Corrigan for the 6th accused, Chan said that before Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung arrived, the 6th accused told Chan "what it was all about". Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung arrived and shortly later Wan Hin-kai and the 1st accused. Wan Hin-kai produced 3 documents which he handed to Huen Hung who, in turn, handed them to the 6th accused. Sometime afterwards these three documents (Exh. P4 A.B. and C) were handed to Chan by the 6th accused with instructions to retain them and, subsequently, Chan handed these documents to Mr. Tyerman of the Independent Commission against Corruption. The 6th accused looked at the documents and asked Wan Hin-kai a number of questions. Then the 6th accused asked Wan Hin-kai: "The money you collected from Fung Leung are cash or cheques?" and Wan Hin-kai replied: "They are cheques - every month the amount is over $100,000".

30. Shortly later in his evidence Chan said: "The first person to mention about Fung Leung collecting money and handing it to Wan Hin-kai was by the 6th accused".

31. Mr. Corrigan, in his cross-examination of Chan asked: "According to you, George Willis asked a large number of questions about the money and where they came from?" and Chan replied "Correct". Also in answer to Mr. Corrigan, Huen Hung said that at that meeting Wan Hin-kai was telling "in detail" those matters to the 6th accused. Later, again to Mr. Corrigan he said that the sources were not mentioned but that the Chinese expression "peen" was used. Chan said: "They were talking all the time about "peen" - "peen" of course, is money from corruption".

32. Chan went on to testify that the 6th accused said: "This is a very great problem" referring to the cheques received by Huen Hung. Then the 6th accused asked Wan Hin-kai if he could leave the Colony "as soon as possible" and Wan Hin-kai replied: "That's very easy for me because I am still on leave". Huen Hung's evidence on this point was: "Then Mr. Wai Wah-kit (the 6th accused) said to Wan Hin-kai 'As for you, under such Colony as soon as possible. By doing that you would not involve other people and you can leave yourself'" to which Wan Hin-kai replied: "If I want to go away I can do it at any time because I am still on leave".

33. Chan testified that the 6th accused said "Quickly notify Yuen Ka-chai about this cheque" and Wan Hin-kai replied that Yuen was still in America but would be returning to Hong Kong the following day. There followed some discussion as to who should go to the airport to meet Yuen and it was decided Chan should go. The 6th accused then said to Chan: "Tomorrow you go to the airport to see the 'plane coming in and to watch out whether anyone arrests Yuen Ka-chai at the airport. If no one arrests him, you tell him about this matter and ask him not to go home and to come with you to my home at 6.30 p.m."

34. Sometime during that meeting the 6th accused asked the 1st accused: "What about the money you collected?" and the 1st accused looking at his brother (Wan Hin-kai) replied: "As regards to mine, they are all cash, I am not as foolish as he is. The collections I made had nothing to do with Fung Leung - I collected on behalf of my elder brother".

35. Chan testified that during that meeting there was a discussion as to what explanation was to be given if the Anti-Corruption Office asked about the cheques given to Huen Hung and the 6th accused advised Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung to say that as regards the cheques they should say the money was profit derived from running an off-course betting business by Mrs. Huen Hung, Fung Leung and Wan Hin-kai. Huen Hung testified that the 6th accused said:- "In regard to the explanation of the cheques for Mr. Huen Hung's wife, we can say that it was from Mr. Wan Hin-kai together with a person by the name of Fung Leung together with Mrs. Huen Hung operating off-course betting for dogs and horses and made profit from those operations". Mr. Corrigan asked Huen Hung: "I put it to you that this suggested explanation of your wife's account from off-course betting came from Alex Chan or Wan Hin-kai rather than George Willis". Huen Hung replied, "I disagree". Mr. Corrigan put to Huen Hung that the suggested explanation was nonsense to which Huen Hung replied: "I say that suggestion was a very reasonable one and my wife should have accepted it". Mr. Corrigan further put to Huen Hung that he had said at the meeting that his wife did not know the name of a horse and Hung Hung replied, "yes" and Mr. Corrigan went on to say that Chan had said: "That's easy, she can get racing forms and study" to which Huen Hung replied "There was such a suggestion about dogs but not races" (by which I understood him to mean horse races). Huen Hung went on: "My wife did not know anything about dogs. They were talking about dogs and horses". Huen Hung admitted that the 6th accused said that one of the weaknesses of that explanation was that the bookie did not always win. Mr. Corrigan asked Huen Hung: "According to you, George Willis suggested this explanation and then threw cold water on it" to which Huen Hung replied: "That was a very good idea and we were very happy to accept this idea". Mr. Corrigan then said: "Having made the explanation George Willis proceeded to say it was not a good idea" to which Huen Hung replied: "No".

36. The 6th accused also told Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung that the best thing was for the two of them to go away "for a while". Mr. Corrigan questioned Chan about the 6th accused's advice to Huen Hung and his wife to go away "for a while" to which Chan replied: "Yes, one evening he said 'go away for a while'. In Chinese expression this does not indicate a period of time. Just to avoid prosecution by the Crown for a corruption case - by doing that they can get off". The 6th accused then made a suggestion: "We might as well make out a test case". The 6th accused said he would go over to Macau with the Huen Hungs within that week and "try out" whether the immigration would stop them (Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung) from going. The 6th accused asked Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung whether they had brought along any photographs for application for entry permits to Taiwan. Huen Hung said he had none but Mrs. Huen Hung brought out 3 photographs together with an old form for entry into Taiwan. The 6th accused told Chan to take Mrs. Huen Hung's photographs and form to the Skal Travel Services to make application for an entry permit to Taiwan on her behalf.

37. Chan testified that before the meeting ended there was some discussion about expenses. Wan Hin-kai and Huen Hung agreed that they would each pay $5,000. Chan said this was to be paid to him and the 6th accused for their services to Wan Hin-kai and Huen Hung.

38. Both Chan and Yuen gave evidence about meeting at the airport on the 17th October, and subsequently going to the Lee Gardens Hotel where, later Wan Hin-kai joined them. Both Chan and Yuen testified as to what they said was discussed at the Hotel. I do not propose to set out the evidence given by Chan and Yuen relating to what transpired at the Lee Gardens Hotel and which was to a large extent at variance one with the other except to say that I accept Chan's testimony on this point and I reject Yuen's evidence where that evidence conflicts with that of Chan's.

39. I now come to Chan's evidence of the meeting at the 6th accused's house on the 17th October, 1973. To Mr. Yap, Chan said the conversation that evening was more or less the same as the previous evening because they were repeating the same matters. Chan said that before the 1st accused arrived, the 6th accused said: "The best thing is for Wan Hin-kai to leave Hong Kong - it would be better for Huen Hung". Yuen said they were all in the sitting room talking about the Anti-Corruption Office investigation of Wan Hin-kai. Yuen testified that the conversation then switched over to Wan Hin-kai's departure from Hong Kong. Yuen said that the 6th accused said that if Wan Hin-kai were not in Hong Kong, the Anti-Corruption Office would have no way to prosecute Wan Hin-kai and that if Wan Hin-kai could not be prosecuted then Huen Hung also could not be prosecuted.

40. Huen Hung testified that at the meeting at the 6th accused's flat on the 17th October, the 6th accused said to Yuen: "There's going to be trouble with the account you opened with Wan Hin-kai" whereupon Yuen replied: "Wan Hin-kai used my name to open an account but I did not have to put in any money - what he used the account for I don't care." Huen Hung then testified that the 6th accused said: "That is not the situation. Wan Hin-kai used that account to pay out money to other police officers. If there is going to be so much trouble, the best thing is for Wan Hin-kai to get away, the earlier the better". Huen Hung testified that the 6th accused said: "In repsect of this matter it is possible Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung could not leave Hong Kong - their names could be on the black list". Yuen said "I believe it would not be carried out so soon". Then, according to Huen Hung, the 6th accused made a suggestion: "The best thing for us to go to Macau once to see if we could go to Macau. I can go along with you (meaning Huen Hung and his wife)". According to Chan, the suggestion by the 6th accused that he go to Macau with Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung was made on the 16th October, 1973 that is, the day before.

41. Chan testified that at this meeting, that is, on the evening of the 17th October, 1973 the 6th accused repeated what he had said the night before. The 6th accused said: "If the Anti-Corruption Office investigate as to the source of the money, say that the money comes from the profit of off-course betting". Chan said the discussion continued and it was about how Wan Hin-kai should get away. In answer to Mr. Corrigan, however, Chan said, "As regards as to how Wan Hin-kai should get away, this took place on the 16th October." Chan said during the discussion on the 17th October, he told the 6th accused that Wan Hin-kai had gone to purchase an airline ticket.

42. Chan, still testifying about the meeting on the 17th October, said that the group agreed he (Chan) should try his best to get entry permits for Huen Hung and his wife and Chan agreed. At the end of the meeting the 6th accused made an appointment to go to Macau the following day to find out whether the immigration authorities would stop Mrs. Huen Hung from leaving Hong Kong.

43. Trying to keep some continuity in the Crown's evidence I now refer to Chan's evidence relating to the 18th October. A little after 10 a.m. that day Chan went to the Skal Travel Services and there he gave the Manager, Mr. Francis Ng, Mrs. Huen Hung's photographs and also Mrs. Huen Hung's form. Chan asked Francis Ng to apply for an entry permit to Taiwan for Mrs. Huen Hung. Whilst at the travel agency, Yuen arrived and, in his office, Yuen told Chan: "Wan Hin-kai left by plane this morning at 6.30". Chan left the travel agency and that same day he telephoned the 6th accused and told him what Yuen had said about Wan Hin-kai's departure. Then, over the telephone, the 6th accused made an appointment with Chan to meet at his (the 6th accused's) flat the next evening. I would like to interpose here the 1st accused's evidence regarding his brother's departure. The 1st accused testified that on the afternoon of the 18th October, Wan Hin-kai's wife telephoned him and told him his brother had left that morning for Taiwan and Japan and she asked the 1st accused to go to a garage in Grampian Road and fetch Wan Hin-kai's car and drive it back to his (Wan Hin-kai's) home. Wan Hin-kai's airport departure card (Exh. P7) indicates his ultimate destination was Taipei/Tokyo.

44. Huen Hung testified that on the 18th October, he drove his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Willis (Connie) and Mr. Willis's son to the Macau Ferry pier and saw them get aboard and the same afternoon he drove his car to the ferry pier and saw them come off the boat. Mr. Corrigan asked Huen Hung whether he thought going to Macau was a good idea and Huen Hung replied: "To test whether my name was on the stop list - if it was on the stop list, the time of my arrest would be very near - if I could pass through, then the other affairs concerning me would not be very important. My wife and I were under investigation - the main trouble was with my wife - I had no problem. When she returned successfully I felt that my affairs were not serious".

45. Chan testified that on the evening of the 19th October at the 6th accused's house he told Huen Hung that Wan Hin-kai had left the Colony and he said Huen Hung appeared unhappy about it. Huen Hung blamed Wan Hin-kai and said something to the effect that Wan Hin-kai should not have left Hong Kong without first notifying him. Huen Hung testifying on this point, denied he was very angry when he heard that Wan Hin-kai had left the Colony. He said: "I was much safer because of the investigations of my wife's account and now he fled away - about the cheques, if the investigation were about the cheques, it would be advantageous to me. At that Stage, if the Anti-Corruption were to arrest me they would not be able to get Wan Hin-kai to give evidence those cheques were obtained by means of squeeze money. Those cheques were cheques only given to me by Wan Hin-kai - the cheques given to me were derived from corruption money so if Wan Hin-kai gave evidence he would give evidence against me. If Wan Hin-kai had gone, easier for me to say that money came from off-course betting. Mr. Wai Wah-kit (the 6th accused asked as to give evidence in that manner - that is why I say it is advantageous to me".

46. Huen Hung then said "Fat Chan (meaning the witness Chan) I give you my share of the money first". Huen Hung put $5,000 on top of the coffee table and said to the 6th accused: "Who shall I give this money first, to you or Fat Chan?" The 6th accused said: "Give it to Fat Chan first - as to mine I will settle the account with you later". The 6th accused picked up and handed the money to Chan. Huen Hung said to Chan: "Don't worry about Wan Hin-kai's share - he still has some account with me - you can collect it from Ah Tuk (referring to the 1st accused) - that would be alright". Chan testified he understood Huen Hung to mean that Wan Hin-kai's $5,000 should be collected from the 1st accused. He then went on to say that Huen Hung meant if he (Chan) could not collect money from Wan Hin-kai, he could get it from Huen Hung. Huen Hung in his evidence denied he had ever told Chan he could collect the $5,000 from either himself or the 1st accused. Chan himself testified that he never gave any part of the $5,000 he received to the 6th accused.

47. Mr. Corrigan for the 6th accused asked Huen Hung: "You never told Willis thereafter you were thinking of going to Taiwan - in other words, of using the entry permits?" and Huen Hung replied: "Actually I was not in preparation to go. It was Wai Wah-kit (the 6th accused) who said it is better to get permit just in case." He was asked: "Just in case of what?" Huen Hung said it was hard to explain the expression. He said for him those permits were of some advantage. He said the 6th accused's suggestion was made entirely out of good faith, namely by getting these permits if and when he, Huen Hung, required them, he could utilize them.

48. Huen Hung said the 6th accused did not say that after he had got the permits, he could get or run away - there was no such idea at all. In answer to Mr. Chandler for the Crown Huen Hung said it was the 6th accused who advised him and his wife to get entry permits to Taiwan. Mr. Chandler asked him: "For what purpose?" and Huen Hung replied: "The purpose was for convenience. If at the time of getting away, we could go to Taiwan. Wai Wah-kit did mention the question of convenience. Wai Wah-kit said 'Huen Hung, it is better for you and your wife to get two entry permits for Taiwan - in the future it would be advantageous to you'".

49. Attached to this judgment is a chart indicating the injection of $1,526,000 into the bogus account by Fung Kwok-leung and the various dispositions from the bogus account by Wan Hin-kai to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 4th accused's wife and to the 5th accused, as well as to Huen Hung. It will be noted that Wan Hin-kai himself withdrew $143,000 from the bogus account by 15 cheques.

50. The Crown's evidence against the 1st accused, the brother of Wan Hin-kai, was, inter alia, that between the 22nd September, 1972 and the 24th April, 1973 he cashed over the counter of the Kowloon City Branch of the Hang Song Bank 14 cheques drawn by Wan Hin-kai on the bogus account totalling $350,000 and that over about the same period, the 1st accused deposited into his personal account, number 301-608 with the Kwun Tong Branch of the Wing On Bank, 15 cheques totalling $318,000 making a grand total for these seven months of $668,000. The 1st accused did not dispute that evidence but he testified that what he did was to accommodate his brother Wan Hin-kai whose hours of duty coincided with banking hours and the 1st accused testified he returned the whole of the $668,000 to his brother. The 1st accused described, in respect of each deposit of Wan Hin-kai's cheques into his, the 1st accused's personal account, how he repaid that money to his brother. The manner in which he said he repaid his brother the monies that he, the 1st accused, had paid into his personal account, I found tortuous. The 1st accused was at all material times the Manager of the Kai Tak Amusement Park which, he testified, had a daily turn-over in excess of $30,000.

51. Whilst on the question of speculation in shares, the 1st accused testified that Wan Hin-kai's interests were gambling. The 1st accused described his brother as "quite a big gambler". At the races, on some occasions, he saw his brother holding a large stack of tickets - by large he said $100 or more. He said his brother speculated in shares in 1972/73 but he did not know whether his brother made money. It is an admitted fact under Section 65 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance that between the 21st December, 1972 and the 7th August, 1973 Wan Hin-kai drew 15 cheques on the bogus account totalling $572,958.20 which he paid to various share brokers. Huen Hung testified he played mahjong with Wan Hin-kai for small stakes (maximum $10) and that Wan Hin-kai used to place bets on off-course betting of $10 to $20 and that at the races the most he would place on a horse was $200.

52. The 1st accused testified Wan Hin-kai told him that the bogus account was opened because he and a few friends were in partnership to speculate in gold and shares. I do not believe the 1st accused's evidence as to the explanation he said his brother gave him. The 1st accused's personal bank account shows he was debited with the purchase of a cheque book on the 4th September, 1973. Till then that account had been dormant for many months. The 1st accused said his brother gave him the first cheque (Exh.P67) on the 4th September, 1973 about 6.00 or 7 p.m. that day, but his bank statement shows that that cheque was deposited into his account that same day, a physical impossibility.

53. Assuming that the Kai Tak Amusement Park was open seven days a week, that business had a yearly turnover of about $11 million. The 1st accused who was married with children and who was about 34 years old in 1972/73 was the Manager of the Kai Tak Amusement Park. The 1st accused described himself as an educated man. The spectacle of the 1st accused going around collecting cheques from his brother, cashing them and bringing back the money to his brother (all in round figures) and at other times depositing other cheques drawn by his brother into his, the 1st accused's personal account with the Kwun Tong Branch of the Wing On Bank (also all in round figures) and in respect of each such deposit, returning to the bank, frequently on several different days, to withdraw monies to pay his brother in respect of each deposit, almost defies the imagination. Making every allowance for the fact that Wan Hin-kai was one of the 1st accused's elder brothers and that their relationship was close, I find it difficult to believe, and I do not believe, that the 1st accused performed these errands out of brotherly affection and respect and because his borther's hours of duties coincided with banking hours.

54. The Crown also adduced evidence that the 1st accused accompanied his brother, Wan Hin-kai, to the 6th accused's flat on the evening of the 16th October, 1973. The 1st accused testified, inter alia, that on that occasion he heard Huen Hung mention that he was being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Office and that he, Huen Hung, had received cheques from Wan Hin-kai and that the latter might be involved and might also be investigated. The 1st accused said that when he heard this he went out to the verandah as he knew Wan Hin-kai did not like other people to know his "official business". In respect of the remarks he heard and which I have just mentioned, he described them as: "To me those were common or ordinary matters - not very important". I must say I find that statement, to say the least, extraordinary, in view of the fact that he himself had admittedly received 29 cheques representing $668,000 all given to him by Wan Hin-kai. He said he did not hear any other conversation as he was watching television or the harbour-view and shortly later went out to the verandah where he stayed till his brother, Wan Hin-kai, told him they were leaving. The 1st accused also admitted being at the 6th accused's flat the following evening. Although Chan, Huen Hung, Yuen and the 6th accused all testified that Wan Hin-kai was not present at any time during that meeting, the 1st accused was adamant that his brother was there. I am satisfied that Wan Hin-kai was not at the meeting in the 6th accused's flat on the 17th October, I have asked myself, in that case, what was the purpose of the 1st accused going there that evening? Certainly not just to get racing tips from Yuen as he suggested. The 1st accused denied Chan's testimony that at the meeting on the 16th October, 1973 at the 6th accused's home, the 6th accused had asked him: "What about the money you collected?" to which the 1st accused is alleged by Chan to have replied, looking at his brother, "As regards to mine, they are all in cash. I am not so foolish as he is. The collections I made had nothing to do with Fung-leung. I collected on behalf of my brother".

55. The evidence against the 2nd accused was that, on two occasions, he cashed cheques for Wan Hin-kai, both cheques drawn by Wan Hin-kai on the bogus account. The first cheque dated the 29th November, 1972 was for $15,000 and this cheque was cashed one or two days before the 2nd accused's marriage. On this occasion, the 2nd accused testified he saw Wan Hin-kai sign his name on the cheque (Exh. P.92) and he said he saw that the printed name on the cheque was not Wan Hin-kai's and so he said to Wan Hin-kai "Wan Sir, how is it that it is not your account and yet money can be obtained from it?" to which Wan Hin-kai is alleged to have replied: "This account was opened with another person for the buying of shares". On this occasion, Wan Hin-kai said he wanted the 2nd accused to cash that cheque (Exh. P92) for $15,000 because he had recently found a little stone hut in the New Territories which he liked and he said that after office hours he would be in a hurry to go to the New Territories to pay over the deposit in cash as the villagers in the New Territories insisted on cash in all their dealings.

56. The second occasion that the 2nd accused cashed a cheque, dated the 31st January, 1973 (Exh. P.123) for Wan Hin-kai, was two or three days before Chinese New Year. Wan Hin-kai allegedly told the 2nd accused that he was going to invite all those above the rank of sergeant in the Unit to his home for New Year greetings and that during the New Year holidays he was going over to Macau with his family. The second cheque was for $20,000. The 2nd accused said he cashed those two cheques for Wan Hin-kai and returned the whole of the monies represented by those two cheques to Wan Hin-kai after he cashed them.

57. The Crown also adduced evidence from three witnesses, PW17, PW19 and PW20. One was a retired police sergeant and the other two were serving sergeants in the Police Force. These three sergeants were in March, 1973 serving in Huen Hung's platoon. I do not propose to set out the evidence of all three sergeants which, with minor variations, were similar in substance. The gist of their evidence was that in March, 1973 (PW19 remembered it was the 18th March, 1973 and PW20 remembered it was roughly the 18th March, 1973) they were all summoned together with another sergeant 790, Cheng Tim-lau who was subsequently killed during a bank robbery, to Wan Hin-kai's office which he shared with the 2nd accused. Wan Hin-kai was not present. The 2nd accused told the four sergeants that the "OC" (who was at the time Wan Hin-kai) had asked him to speak to them - he told them not to raid tse-fa stalls "at random" and that each patrol vehicle would be paid a few tens of dollars - one mentioned $40 per day, "for tea". The 2nd accused went on to say that if they refused to obey these instructions they would be transferred as far away as possible. None of the sergeants said anything and all left hurriedly and they carried out their duties as before, including the arrest of tse-fa gamblers. Two of the witnesses said they had made statements to the Anti-Corruption Office regarding this incident similar to the ones they made to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. PW20 said he could not remember what he told the Anti-Corruption Office but said that his evidence was true and consistent with the statement he gave to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

58. In regard to the evidence by the three sergeants, the 2nd accused said that on one Saturday in March, 1973 Wan Hin-kai had told him that he had heard rumours that some sergeants were collecting money from tse-fa stalls amounting to a few ten dollars a day and Wan Hin-kai had said angrily to the 2nd accused: "Tomorrow you warn the sergeants of Huen Hung's platoon - if I find out who the sergeants are who are collecting money outside, I would send their numbers to the Anti-Corruption". Wan Hin-kai also mentioned the Fight Violent Crime Campaign and said that if he found any officers leaving their cordon points in the future he would transfer them or take disciplinary action against them. As a result of those instructions, the next day, a Sunday, when he was acting as a relief Inspector for Huen Hung who was on leave that day, he spoke to two groups of sergeants in Huen Hung's platoon. At 7 a.m. he spoke to 6 sergeants and at 8 a.m. he spoke to 3 or 4 sergeants and relayed to them what Wan Hin-kai had told him. The 2nd accused said the evidence of the three sergeants was a fabrication on their part to incriminate him.

59. The Crown also relied on the evidence of Mr. Tsui Kai-kit the officer in charge of this case who testified that when he and Mr. Colin Craig, an investigating officer of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (who gave evidence similar to that of Mr. Tsui) showed the 2nd accused photocopies of the two cheques (Exhs. P.92 and P.123), the 2nd accused denied that the signatures on the backs of the two cheques were his - he said he did not get on well with Wan Hin-kai and that he was a strict disciplinarian and had defaulted many subordinates, and that it was possible that his signature had been forged and that someone was trying to frame him. The 2nd accused testified he did not deny the signatures on the cheques were his but that he asked to see the originals otherwise he could not say whether those two cheques were the cheques he had cashed for Wan Hin-kai. When Mr. Colin Craig, in the presence of the 2nd accused, searched a room which the 2nd accused rented for $500 on the 12th floor of No. 753 in Nathan Road, (although the 2nd accused was provided with police married quarters) Mr. Craig found a diary (Exh. P.17) written mostly in English. The 2nd accused's counsel took him through the various entries in the diary and Mr. Chandler for the Crown cross-examined him at some length regarding some entries. I found most of the 2nd accused's explanations of those entries tenuous, to say the least.

60. The Crown's evidence against the 3rd accused was Huen Hung's testimony that, sometime between April and June, 1973 he was in Wan Hin-kai's office and there he saw Wan Hin-kai give the 3rd accused three $500 notes for himself and the other Station Sergeants. When this Court first heard legal arguments in this case on the 5th January, 1976 Mr. Niamatullah stated, inter alia, that the only evidence as appeared in the Summary of Facts by the Crown was that the 3rd accused had on the 15th June, 1973 cashed one cheque for $20,000 for Wan Hin-kai and he submitted there did not even appear to be a prima facie case against the 3rd accused. Mr. Tsui admitted being present on that day but said he was going in and out and he did not hear that submission. On the 13th January, 1976 (one day before the hearing of the consolidated case began) Crown Counsel served on defence counsel a copy of additional evidence intended to be adduced by Huen Hung. Mr. Tsui the officer in charge of this case, pursuant to Crown Counsel's instructions, had gone, together with Mr. Peter Mo, on the 12th January, 1976 (that is, two days before the consolidated case was due to begin) to see Huen Hung to serve him with copies of his two previous statements and to grant him immunity. Huen Hung said he had something to add, and he made mention, inter alia, of seeing Wan Hin-kai in his office pay the 3rd accused $1,500 to be shared with other Station Sergeants sometime between April and June, 1973. Mr. Niamatullah, having regard to the above facts and especially to the fact that this additional evidence was only obtained two days before the resumed hearing, suggested that that part of Huen Hung's evidence had been "fabricated and manufactured" between Huen Hung and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, in particular Mr. Tsui. Huen Hung and Mr. Tsui denied that allegation and both mentioned, in effect, that Huen Hung's statement on the 12th January had been spontaneous and without any prompting whatever. Mr. Mo who was seated between Huen Hung and Mr. Tsui on that occasion, was recalled by the Crown, and in answer to a question put by the Court after counsel had finished examining him, Mr. Mo stated that he did not see or hear anything on that occasion which suggested to him any impropriety by Mr. Tsui. Mr. Niamatullah in the course of the trial, referred to my question as "leading" and suggested in his final address that I should attach little weight to Mr. Mo's reply. The 3rd accused, in his evidence, denied that he had ever received any money from Wan Hin-kai as alleged by Huen Hung. He described how, on the 15th June, 1973 Wan Hin-kai called him to his office, and asked him to go to the Kowloon City Branch of the Hang Seng Bank. When the 3rd accused said he would, Wan Hin-kai produced a cheque book and wrote down the date, etc. The thing that most attracted the 3rd accused's attention was the way Wan Hin-kai wrote the amount - twenty thousand only - and then signed his name. The 3rd accused said he wondered why Wan Hin-kai had not put down the word "dollars" because, being only used to a savings account, he had to write the word "dollar". I am sure that this part of the accused's evidence by the 3rd accused who was a Station Sergeant and aged 39, was an embellishment on his part. He described how he was driven to the Bank and back by a colleague and that he handed the $20,000 to Wan Hin-kai. The 3rd accused said that he was not aware that the cheque (Exh. P.173) had the name "Mr. Yuen Ka-chai Ronnie" printed on it. The 3rd accused said there was no need to scrutinize the cheque. In view of the fact that, apparently, he had never seen a cheque before, I find this hard to believe. The 3rd accused gave evidence of being present at the Police Training School when Huen Hung told him and other officers present, that he had given the Commandant of the School a sports car and he also gave evidence of being present, with other officers at the Unit, when Huen Hung spoke on the telephone to "big brother Godber" and how Huen Hung was angry that one Ah Cheung of Kowloon City had failed to pay Godber on a stipulated date. He said that because there was some "relationship", to use his own words, between Huen Hung and Godber, he thought this was tantamount to Godber supporting Wan Hin-kai. Later, under cross-examination, he said this was a presumption on his part. He said everyone in the Police Force knew of Huen Hung's corrupt activities, later he said he had made a mistake - what he meant to say was that he suspected Huen Hung of being corrupt. He said he did not know if anyone in the Unit apart from Huen Hung was corrupt.

61. The Crown's case against the 4th accused was that between the 10th August, 1972 and the 31st May, 1973 he cashed 15 cheques for Wan Hin-kai, all these cheques being drawn by Wan Hin-kai on the bogus account and totalling $244,000. The 4th accused admitted cashing those cheques for Wan Hin-kai but said he did this on instructions, that he returned all the monies represented by the cheques to Wan Hin-kai as soon as he had cashed them and he also said he did not know or suspect Wan Hin-kai to be a corrupt officer.

62. In addition, he caused to be paid three cheques given him by Wan Hin-kai into his wife's account. One cheque (Exh. P265) was drawn by Wan Hin-kai on his personal account with the Head Office of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank for $10,000 and the other two, one for $10,000 (Exh.P.161) and another for $15,000 (Exh. P.171) were drawn by Wan Hin-kai on the bogus account. On the 9th May, 1973 the 4th accused's wife paid the two cheques drawn by Wan Hin-kai (Exh. P.161 and Exh. P.265) into her account. In May, 1973 alone, the 4th accused cashed five cheques totalling $97,000, the last two cheques being dated on consecutive days. The 4th accused admitted causing his wife to pay the three cheques totalling $35,000 into his wife's account. He said that Wan Hin-kai asked him to pay these into an account and to let him have the money a few days later, which the 4th accused did. The 4th accused's wife closed her account on the 18th October, 1973 (the day Wan Hin-kai departed the Colony) and the 4th accused described this as "a rare co-incidence". The 4th accused said he returned to Wan Hin-kai all the monies represented by the three cheques paid into his wife's account.

63. In answer to the first charge, the 4th accused voluntarily wrote: "I have not taken money for Wan Hin-kai since May".

64. The Crown also relied on a cautioned statement by the 4th accused (Exh.P16) made on the evening of the day he was arrested, the 23rd September, 1975. The admissibility of that statement was challenged but I ruled it as being admissible. The 4th accused adopted his evidence in the voir dire on the general issue.

65. The Crown's evidence against the 5th accused was that between the 22nd November, 1972 and the 17th April, 1973 he cashed eight cheques for Wan Hin-kai, all drawn by Wan Hin-kai on the bogus account and totalling $80,000. The 5th accused admitted cashing these cheques for Wan Hin-kai at his request and he testified that all the monies represented by the cheques were returned to Wan Hin-kai as soon as the cheques had been cashed. The 5th accused said he never knew, much less suspected, that the cheques represented monies from corrupt sources. The 5th accused said that when asked by Wan Hin-kai to cash the eight cheques, he noticed the name Ronnie Yuen Ka-chai and he said his English was not very good and that because there was another name before Yuen Ka-chai he did not know whether that name referred to a man or a woman and so the 5th accused did not know whether those cheques were Wan Hin-kai's wife's cheques. However, it will be noticed that there is no name before Yuen Ka-chai. The printed name appears as "Mr. Yuen Ka-chai Ronnie". When shown the eight cheques by Mr. Tsui at the offices of the Independent Commission Against Corruption the 5th accused admitted that he had seen those cheques before, that they were signed by Wan Hin-kai and that his endorsement appeared on the back of each cheque. After he said this, Mr. Tsui immediately cautioned him and wrote the conversation which had transpired into his notebook (Exh. P.306). The 5th accused said, inter alia, he was not sure that the contents of Exh. P.306 were exactly the same as those he signed and he said he was not sure whether one of the signatures was his. He said after signing in a notebook Mr. Tsui produced from a bundle of documents a blank sheet of paper and told the 5th accused his signature was required for handwriting comparision and he indicated a spot near the right top of the page where he wished the 5th accused to sign his name which the 5th accused did. Mr. Tsui went out and returned shortly and in the presence of the 5th accused he clipped a photocopy of a cheque in the middle of the sheet of paper on which the 5th accused had already signed once and Mr. Tsui said that he was sorry but he needed a further signature and he indicated a spot immediately below and to the right of the cheque. The 5th accused said he lifted the cheque and saw there was nothing written underneath. He signed his name as indicated. Mr. Tsui testifying on this aspect, said that after the 5th accused had signed his notebook, he wrote out a caution at the top of a piece of blank paper. Mr. Tsui said it was his practice always to write at the very top of a page when taking cautioned statements and he produced a statement taken by him from Fung Kwok-leung (Exh. P.307) which appears to confirm his statement. He said that after the 5th accused had signed the caution, he wrote word for word what the 5th accused said and the 5th accused signed his name.

66. The guard who had been outside the room where the 5th accused was being detained, Mr. Hui Kar-man, had been asked by Mr. Tsui to come in and be a witness. Mr. Hui testified he did so and set two or three feet away from Mr. Tsui. He saw Mr. Tsui put down something that looked like a bundle of cheques. He heard Mr. Tsui speaking with the 5th accused but he couldn't remember what it was as it was too long ago. He saw Mr. Tsui take out a pink coloured notebook in which he saw Mr. Tsui write something and he also saw the 5th accused write something in the notebook. He said he heard Mr. Tsui caution the 5th accused (the 5th accused denied he was cautioned on that day), he saw Mr. Tsui write the caution on a piece of paper and he saw the 5th accused sign his name. The 5th accused then started talking and Mr. Tsui wrote on the piece of paper. This went on for about 35 minutes. After writing Mr. Tsui handed the piece of paper to the 5th accused who signed his name. Mr. Tsui indicated to the witness Hui where to put his signature which Mr. Hui identified in Court. He said he did not pay attention to what Mr. Tsui and the 5th accused were talking about - he could hear their voices but not what they were saying. Mr. Hui said he saw what he called "writings" on the piece of paper but he did not look at the writings. Mr. Hui said that, to the best of his recollection, the lines on Exh.P.9 were not drawn in that room in his presence and he said the word "witness" in front of his name was not written by him. Mr. Hui said he had never taken a cautioned statement. The 5th accused, on the other hand, testified that on many, many occasions he had made arrests and on each occasion administered the caution. To his Counsel Mr. Niamatullah, he said, in effect, that many of the statements taken by him were confessions. Mr. Niamatullah asked Mr. Tsui whether in the Independent Commission Against Corruption they used "unorthodox methods" in obtaining evidence to which Mr. Tsui replied: "How do you mean unorthodox?" Then Mr. Niamatullah said that the Independant Commission Against Corruption made use of "human weaknesses" to which Mr. Tsui replied he could not understand the question. Mr. Niamatullah then said "For example, there was an offer to the witness Huen Hung not to prosecute him further" to which Mr. Tsui replied, "This is not something new". The 5th accused said that the only matters he had mentioned to Mr. Tsui before signing his name the first time was five lines which appear in Exh. P.9 and which I caused to be underlined in green. The 5th accused said he cashed cheques not only for Wan Hin-kai but also for other officers including Mr. Grace who gave him cheques through his lady secretary for from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars. The 5th accused said he also did odd jobs for Wan Hin-kai.

67. The 5th accused was asked whether he personally knew of anyone in the Unit who had received corrupt money and the 5th accused replied in the affirmative. He said on quite a number of occasions police officers spoke about it to him and on other occasions he overheard conversations. He said it was common knowledge in the Unit at that time that squeeze money was being collected. In cross-examination he 5th accused said it was a shock when he saw Exh. P.9 in its present form. The 5th accused, in my opinion, was evasive as to when he first saw Exh. P.9 as it now appears. He said he couldn't remember after which hearing had been adjourned that his solicitor showed it to him. His original solicitor was a Mr. So Ho-ming. It was suggested by Mr. Chandler he was shown a copy of Exh. P.9 as early as the 20th October, 1975 but the 5th accused said he couldn't remember. Crown Counsel suggested he was given a copy and this had been in his possession since the 3rd November, 1975. The 5th accused replied: "A copy was given to me by solicitor So Ho-ming". Crown Counsel again suggested that he was given a copy of Exh. P.9 on the 3rd November, 1975 but the 5th accused said he could not remember. He was then asked whether it was not a fact that when his then solicitors H.M. So & Co. received no further instructions from him, he was handed a copy of Exh. P.9 on the 3rd November, 1975 and the 5th accused then said, "Yes" and he admitted it had been in his possession ever since. He said he received a copy of Exh. P.9 before his first appearance before a District Judge and when he was asked why he didn't take that opportunity to tell the judge that a statement had been fabricated over his signature, the 5th accused replied he did not want to delay the Court because he was thinking he would tell the Court at the time it was his turn to speak. The 5th accused acknowledged receiving a letter from my Judicial Clerk dated the 19th December, 1975 pointing out, inter alia, that he appeared to be unrepresented and that if he wished to retain a lawyer or apply for legal aid, he should do so without delay. The 5th accused said he remembered this case started on the 5th January, 1976 when there were legal arguments in respect of the charges and he was asked whether he remembered being asked by the Court whether he had anything to say, the 5th accused said he could not remember. He was asked why he did not complain to the Court on the 5th January, 1976 and he replied: "Because at that time it was not the hearing itself". The 5th accused said he had been a police officer for 12 years and he said that, "of course", he had heard about corruption in the first 3 or 4 months after he was posted to the Unit. He said he heard of vehicles (which I took to him to mean the occupants of vehicles) who had taken money from tse-fa stalls for not taking action against them. He said he heard indirectly this was a common practice, but he disagreed there was a common fund from which officers from the O.C. down to the clerk in the office received a portion in varying degrees.

68. The Crown's evidence against the 6th accused included the evidence of conversations at his flat at the meetings in mid-October, 1973, the fact that he went to Macau with Mrs. Huen, Connie and his son and also a tape-recorded interview between himself and Mr. Sutherland at the Independent Commission Against Corruption offices on the 10th September, 1975 which tape recording was played in court. The agreed transcript of that interview is Exh.P.3 and consists of 22 pages.

69. The following are some of the facts agreed between the Crown and the Defence pursuant to Section 65 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance:-

70. Although a defence witness, it might not be inappropriate to refer here briefly to the evidence of Mr. Lo Kam Chuen whose statement was agreed. Mr. Lo who is employed by Mackinnons Travel as Operations Supervisor stated that, inter alia, an applicant wishing to obtain an entry permit for Taiwan had to produce 4 photographs duly signed on the reverse side. The application form had to be accompanied by a photocopy of the applicant's Identity Card. The applicant had to be sponsored by a resident in Taiwan who had been engaged in business in that country for at least one year. For an applicant who had not been to Taiwan before, the entry permit would take between 4 to 6 weeks. For an applicant who had been to Taiwan before, the procedures are the same but the period of getting the entry permit would be between 10 to 21 days. He said that a person in transit (by which the witness meant a short stay) in Taiwan had to have an entry permit.

71. None of these matters were put to Yuen Ka-chai of the Skal Travel Services Ltd. or Chan Lik-shan who said he obtained entry permits for Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung through the Skal Travel Services.

72. The 6th accused testified he first became acquainted with Huen Hung, he thought in 1947. He described his relationship with Huen Hung as a friendly acquaintanceship - they were never close. He said Huen Hung never consulted him for legal advice until October, 1973.

73. Referring to Ronnie Yuen Ka-chai, he thought he met him in 1958.

74. He said he thought he first met Chan when he saw him with Mr. Bernard Gunston in Court in either August or September, 1973. They got talking together.

75. He said he thought Chan briefed him some time in October, 1973 for a case at the North Kowloon Magistracy on the 10th October, 1973 on the instructions of John Ip & Co. He said this case was the first case with Chan. He was asked whether he received any other work from Chan, directly or indirectly, and the 6th accused said there was another case involving a defendant charged with wounding, a case before a Judge of the District Court on the 17th October, 1973. The 6th accused produced an extract from a court record certified by the judicial clerk of the Judge concerned. This was marked Exh.D7. On the 17th October, 1973 the case was adjourned. The 6th accused said there were four cases in which Chan "had a hand" in his being briefed.

76. The 6th accused said that after the events in October 1973 there was a change in his relationship with Huen Hung, who came to see him once in a while, the 6th accused thought it was more for moral support and Mrs. Huen Hung came to play mahjong with Connie on several occasions when Huen Hung would come to pick up his wife after the mahjong games. He said that prior to the meetings at his home on the 16th and 17th October, 1973 he had never seen Huen Hung in connection with any personal matters.

77. The 6th accused was asked how the meeting in his flat on the 16th October came to take place and he replied he remembered Huen Hung ringing him up on that day. Huen Hung spoke in Cantonese and the gist was that Huen Hung had some "siu siu ma faan", a little trouble, which he wanted to see the 6th accused about. The 6th accused asked Huen Hung whether he wished to see him (the 6th accused) in his professional capacity and Huen Hung replied, "Yes". The 6th accused told Huen Hung that he could not see him professionally unless it was in the presence of a solicitor or a solicitor's representative. Huen Hung asked to come that evening and for the 6th accused to make the necessary arrangements for either a solicitor or a solicitor's representative to be present. The 6th accused agreed. The 6th accused said he knew that Chan was coming that same evening to deliver a file and so he rang up Chan at his home and he told Chan that Huen Hung apparently wanted to see him in his, the 6th accused's, professional capacity and he asked Chan to come along that evening around 8 p.m. The 6th accused said that he remembered "reasonably well" what took place that evening. He said that before he was interviewed by officers of the Independent Commission Against Corruption in September, 1975 he never had occasion to think back to the events of mid-October, 1973. He said that as far as he was concerned there was nothing special or extraordinary about the events in October, 1973. He said that after his interview with the Independent Commission Against Corruption in September, 1975 he began to think about "those matters" and he had discussed with Connie the events which took place in mid-October, 1973 in order to try to recall as much as possible. These discussions proved distinctly helpful, and hearing the evidence in this case had assisted his memory.

78. He said that on the 16th October, 1973 when Chan came to his flat, they both speculated as to the reasons why Huen Hung wanted to see him in his professional capacity - they both thought it most probably concerned corruption. He was asked why he thought that, and the 6th accused replied that, in his own mind, when a police officer wanted advice from a lawyer, invariably, but not always, it concerned corruption. He said he told Chan he wanted him to act for Huen Hung. He said there was no discussion about fees as there was no point in doing that when one didn't know what "the case" was all about. About 5 or 10 minutes after Chan's arrival Huen Hung arrived with a person who was introduced to him as Wan Hin-kai. He had never met Wan Hin-kai before. Huen Hung said Wan Hin-kai was his superior officer. The 6th accused said he had no recollection at all of anybody else being present but he said he accepted the fact that the 1st accused was present although he had no recollection of his being there. He said he did not accept that Mrs. Huen Hung was present that evening. He was reminded by his Counsel that at an earlier stage of the proceedings, his own Counsel had agreed, as a fact, that Mrs. Huen Hung was present at that meeting - the 6th accused said he did not recall Mrs. Huen Hung being present on the 16th but he recalled she was present on the 17th October, 1973. He said that after introductions all around he recalled Huen Hung praising the flat generally, that it was quiet and very cool. He recalled they walked out to the verandah and he thought, he could not be sure, that Huen Hung said the harbour view was very good. The 6th accused said he recalled there were people fishing on the waterfront of the promenade, he remembered being asked whether there were fish to be caught. The 6th accused thought he indicated the fishing was very poor. They chatted for a while on the verandah and they then returned to the sitting room. Huen Hung admired what the 6th accused called a lamp mirror. He recalled Huen Hung asking for permission to look around the flat, which he did with the 6th accused and Connie. Prior to that Huen Hung had enquired about the price of the flat and the size in area. The 6th accused had introduced Connie to Huen Hung and to Wan Hin-kai and he also introduced Chan to Huen Hung and Wan Hin-kai. He surmised that he introduced Chan as "This is Mr. Chan Lit-shan of Gunston". He was quite confident he introduced Chan as being in the employment of a solicitor's firm, namely, Gunston's.

79. After they had sat down, grouped around a coffee table, Huen Hung told the 6th accused that Wan Hin-kai was being investigated by Anti-Corruption. The 6th accused then asked Huen Hung what the investigation of Wan Hin-kai had to do with him. Huen Hung said he had received certain cheques from Wan Hin-kai which had been deposited in his, Huen Hung's wife's account and he feared he might be implicated. The 6th accused then asked where the cheques originated from, that is, whose account it was, whether it was Wan Hin-kai's personal account. At this stage Wan Hin-kai told the 6th accused that the account was one opened by a person named Yuen Ka-chai. Up to this time, to use the 6th accused's own words, there had been no mention about the nature of the investigation by the Anti-Corruption or the stage at which the investigation had gone. Wan Hin-kai said that he had signed those cheques. Wan Hin-kai then handed him a photostat copy of a bank specimen signature card. The 6th accused thought Wan Hin-kai indicated his own signature was on that card, and also the signature of the person who opened the account. He said no cheques were shown to him, nor was he shown any third party authorization document. Wan Hin-kai said that he had asked Yuen to open his account on his behalf or for his purposes - Wan Hin-kai said he was gambling heavily at the races, that he was himself operating as an off-course bookie, that he had grown up and gone to school with Yuen and that he had asked Yuen to open the account because he did not want his wife to know about it. Wan Hin-kai said he was rather worried, especially as he had promised his wife to go on holiday to Canada during his vacation. The 6th accused asked if he was coming back and Wan Hin-kai said words to the effect, "Yes, of course". The 6th accused said that the thought had occurred to him that this was a matter involving corruption. The 6th accused said that, at that time, as everyone knew, a number of police officers had absconded abroad - this was common knowledge in the Colony. The 6th accused asked Huen Hung how many cheques he had received from Wan Hin-kai - Huen Hung said he could not quite remember but that it was more than ten and some of the cheques were for $10,000. The 6th accused asked what explanation he had in regard to the cheques in question and the 6th accused said that Huen Hung then said something "extremely stupid". Huen Hung said that the cheques were repayments by Wan Hin-kai of loans made by Mrs. Huen Hung to Wan Hin-kai. The 6th accused said he pointed out, rather forcefully, that no one would believe him. The 6th accused said he realized that Wan Hin-kai and Huen Hung had come in connection with certain cheques issued by Wan Hin-kai to Huen Hung and that Wan Hin-kai was under investigation by the Anti-Corruption and Huen Hung himself feared his being implicated in that investigation. The 6th accused said in Chinese "saw, (stupid) no one would believe you, expecially the amounts were so large". Then Wan Hin-kai "butted in" - he was speaking or addressing Huen Hung - he said "You can say that your wife and myself are partners in an off-course betting business". Huen Hung protested, saying his wife knew nothing about horses or dog racing - his wife only knew how to play mahjong. At this stage Chan also "butted in" saying words to the effect: "It is quite easy, all she need to do is to buy newspapers on dog racing and horse racing and to swot it up". The 6th accused said he was very annoyed. He remembered saying something in Chinese; the literal translation being: "What you chaps say cannot enter the ear". The 6th accused said he was expressing complete disbelief and discontent. The 6th accused said he simply did not like the idea - he even remembered that what they had said was "completely fallacious, complete nonsense". The 6th accused said to them "If I was a judge I would certainly not believe you." The 6th accused said it was getting late and that he had some papers for next day's work or that he had to read some documents. In answer to his Counsel, he said the papers related to a case the following day. The 6th accused told them to leave and "to talk the matter over" with Chan. I am not sure what that rather extraordinary advice was intended to mean.

80. As they were about to leave the 6th accused said: "If you should see Ah Chai (that is Ronnie Yuen) ask him to come and see me". Wan Hin-kai then said that Yuen was not in the Colony but that in all probability he would be returning the next day.

81. The 6th accused said he did not expect to see them again. He said he expected to see Ronnie Yuen sometime or that he would himself go to see Yuen. The 6th accused said he did not expect to see Huen Hung the following day but that he expected that Chan, at some later stage, would brief him in respect of Huen Hung, "if anything would materialize". Here we have a situation inwhich Chan, a solicitor's clerk, had made a suggestion as to how to bolster up a fictitious explanation and the 6th accused expected, at some later stage, Chan to brief him "if anything should materialize". The 6th accused said he had indicated, to use his own words, "displeasure" at what Wan Hin-kai and Chan had said. He was asked by his Counsel: "Displeasure is one thing - belief or disbelief is another thing - what about your belief or disbelief in what they said?" and the 6th accused said he disbelieved what they said and that he indicated that quite forcefully at the time by his remarks. The 6th accused said that he estimated that from the time Chan came (5/10 minutes before the others) to the time they all left together was 1 ½ hours approximately. He was asked if they had come for his counsel or advice on this particular meeting, what did they get from him and the 6th accused replied: "I poured cold water on what had been said". He was asked: "But what did it seem they had wanted to ask you about, to sum it up?" The 6th accused replied: "On reflection, they wanted me to solve their problems for them. They must have a reason for their visit, I gave certain advice which amounted to no one would believe Huen Hung's explanation". He was asked: "They gave you a certain explanation - we know you poured cold water - what did they expect you to do?" The 6th accused replied: "To unravel Huen Hung's difficulties, most probably, which I did to some extent, by implying, by the remarks which I had made, that it was a hopeless matter". He was asked whether at this meeting there was any mention of the source of these monies which he suspected to be from corruption and the 6th accused replied: "None whatsoever". He said the name Fung Kwok-leung was never mentioned. He said he first heard or learnt the name of Fung Kwok-leung or Fung-leung sometime in September, 1975. He read something about this person in the papers and later, at an interview in the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Mr. Sutherland mentioned that name to him. The 6th accused said that at the meeting on the 16th October, he made no mention whatsoever about Wan Hin-kai leaving the Colony, nor did he ever suggest that Huen Hung and his wife should give a false explanation to the authorities, be it the proceeds of off-course betting or otherwise to account for the monies on Huen Hung's wife's account, nor did he on the 16th October, 1973 in any way advise that Huen Hung should leave Hong Kong temporarily nor did he suggest any test case by going to Macau - this last allegation by the Crown witnesses, the 6th accused alleged was "a childish one", nor did he ever ask Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung whether they had brought along photographs for an application for entry to Taiwan, nor was there on the 16th October any discussion about the payment of legal fees to him or Chan, in particular payments by Huen Hung and/or Wan Hin-kai.

82. The 6th accused said that during the meeting on the 16th October there was no mention of the Chinese word "peen" or squeeze money or of black money.

83. The 6th accused concluded a case on the morning of the 17th October at 11.30 and he then went home. At about 3 p.m. that day he said Chan unexpectedly arrived. Mr. Chan told the 6th accused that, at the request of Wan Hin-kai, he had gone to the airport where he had met Yuen Ka-chai and that he had told Yuen that the 6th accused wanted to see him and that Yuen would come to the 6th accused's flat at about 6.30 that evening. The 6th accused said he was surprised to see Chan that afternoon. The 6th accused only expected to see Yuen that evening but sometime after 6 p.m. Chan arrived, then Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung and eventually Yuen. The 6th accused said he was surprised at the arrival of Chan and Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung. In cross-examination the 6th accused said he was not surprised to Huen Hung on the evening of the 17th October. He would have been surprised, however, if Huen Hung had arrived with a dance hostess. The 6th accused said he had no idea why all these four people turned up at his flat. He said he asked Yuen (who had arrived 20 - 30 minutes after the Huens) whether he had opened an account authorising Wan Hin-kai to operate the account - Yuen replied he had done so at the request of Wan Hin-kai, a former classmate of his, who had asked him to open this account authorising Wan Hin-kai to operate the account - Yuen replied he had done so at the request of Wan Hin-kai, a former classmate of his, who had asked him to open this account for gambling purposes and that he did not want his wife to know. The 6th accused told him that this account (the bogus account) might get him into trouble.

84. In cross-examination on this point, the 6th accused said that at that time he suspected Yuen was involved in corruption - he also said he thought Yuen was lying and he gave reasons why he disbelieved Wan Hin-kai's explanation. Going back to his evidence-in-chief, the 6th accused said he advised Yuen that if he was questioned he should tell the truth "as he had related it to him", that is, to the 6th accused.

85. The 6th accused said that Wan Hin-kai was certainly not there on the 17th October. The 6th accused said that at that meeting nothing whatsoever was said about Wan Hin-kai leaving the Colony, nor had anyone informed him that Wan Hin-kai was minded to leave the Colony, nor that he had gone to purchase an airline ticket or anything of that nature. The 6th accused said on this occasion he had never suggested that Wan Hin-kai should leave the Colony, nor had he suggested a false explanation be given in respect of the monies in Mrs. Huen's account. The 6th accused said that on that evening there was no discussion of the Huen Hungs going to Taiwan or of the mechanics of obtaining entry permits. He introduced Mrs. Huen to Connie. Mrs. Huen invited Connie for "yum cha" the next day and Connie replied she was going to Macau the following day to have some clothes made. Mrs. Huen asked Connie if she might accompany her. The 6th accused remembered asking Huen Hung whether he wished to go to Macau but Huen Hung declined saying he had to apply for permission to go. After returning from Court that day, after the case had been adjourned, he had himself thought of going to Macau. The 6th accused said he went to Macau very often. He said he was a very keen roulette player and he said he had been going to Macau on a large number of occasions over many years. The 6th accused said there was no mention by anyone that evening that the purpose of going to Macau was in order to test whether the Huen Hungs or Mrs. Huen was on the immigration stop list. He was asked by his Counsel: "From what you know of the Anti-Corruption Branch investigating these people at this very date, in other words, what you had been told the day before, would it have appeared likely or not that such people would have been on the stop list - what would you have expected?" and the 6th accused replied that he did not think Mrs. Huen would be on the stop list - no one had told him that Huen Hung was being investigated, Huen Hung merely said he feared he would be implicated in the Anti-Corruption investigations of Wan Hin-kai.

86. The 6th accused said that the next day, that is, the 18th October he, together with Mrs. Huen and Connie's son Gary, went to Macau. The ladies went about their business in Macau and the 6th accused went gambling. They all returned the same evening from Macau. He couldn't remember whether it was late afternoon or evening. On arrival in Hong Kong Mrs. Huen immediately telephoned her husband. They all then boarded a taxi and went to the Blue Sky Restuarant in Prince Edward Road. Dinner was not served for some time because he and/or Connie had to telephone home to bring the rest of the children to the restaurant. They had to wait for about 20 minutes before the children arrived and dinner was served. He said it was about an hour from the time of his return from Macau when they had dinner in the restaurant and he said that at no time during the course of that day up to the time of having dinner at the restaurant did he receive a telephone call from Chan or anyone else. He said it was about 9 p.m. when they visited the restaurant and had dinner. Mr. Huen Hung drove the 6th accused and members of his family home. He said he did not speak to Chan after 9 p.m.

87. The 6th accused said one or two days later Huen Hung telephoned him saying he was coming to see the 6th accused and that he had arranged for Chan to come along also. Huen Hung arrived first and later Chan. Before Chan arrived Huen Hung told the 6th accused that Chan was asking him for money and that he might as well give Chan money to "hoi filo" which he understood to mean to make a deposit on account. The 6th accused said to Huen Hung: "That is up to you". The 6th accused gathered from what Huen Hung said that he had become Chan's client. The 6th accused said that when Chan arrived he remembered that Huen Hung gave Chan $5,000, all in $500 bank notes. The 6th accused said he did not ask nor receive any part of the money - he never asked for payment for services rendered to Huen Hung whilst being represented by Chan or Chan's firm. He said what services he had rendered at the time were casual meetings a few days earlier. They were not conferences and, even if they were, it was not his habit to charge for conferences. He thought that, in time, there might be a possible court action which might arise in connexion with Huen Hung. The 6th accused said a week or so after what he termed, "the initial preliminary meetings", he was in San Po Keng Magistracy - this was for a case that was to be heard on the 24th, 25th and 26th October. He said that on one of those days at the Magistracy, Chan told him that Wan Hin-kai left the Colony, and he said Chan also told him that Yuen had arranged for Wan Hin-kai's personal effects to be sent to Taiwan. Yuen had testified that he had sent Wan Hin-kai's personal effects to him in Taiwan. The 6th accused said that sometime in November, he thought, Huen Hung came late one night with the 1st accused. The 1st accused said he had received a letter from his brother in Japan (Exh.D3) asking him to submit Wan Hin-kai's resignation to the Commissioner of Police. The 1st accused asked him whether this resignation would be effective. The 6th accused told the 1st accused that this matter depended entirely on the Commissioner of Police. The 1st accused, testifying on this point, said he went to see "George Willis, the barrister" as a friend and described the 6th accused, inter alia, as "a person who likes to talk very much". The 6th accused said he had no recollection after the 16/17th October of talking at his home about the Huen Hung's going to Taiwan but he said he made inquiries and he gathered from Connie that she had some recollection. The 6th accused described the suggestion that Chan had come to see him in connection with his (Chan's) seeking payments from the 1st accused as "absolutely fantastic". He had never seen Exh.D1, being the debit note produced by Chan to the 1st accused. In November, Huen Hung came to see the 6th accused and said he wanted a change of solicitors and that Chan was pressing him for fees and not doing anything for it. He said the last time he saw Chan in connexion with Huen Hung's affairs was a day or two after the 18th October, when Huen Hung paid Chan $5,000 "as some sort of retainer". He said that after that occasion he left Huen Hung "in Chan's hands". When Huen Hung come in November and complained about Chan, the 6th accused, on the 24th November, 1973 took Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung to Mr. Peter Mo. He said he knew Huen Hung was worried about the cheques from Wan Hin-kai and that sooner or later he would be interrogated and that was the reason he took him to see Mr. Peter Mo. The 6th accused said that Huen Hung understood, after the visit to Mr. Peter Mo on the 24th November, that Mr. Mo was acting for Huen Hung and the 6th accused said he took it that as from that date he was being retained by Mr. Mo. However, Mr. Peter Mo in his evidence said there was no question of his acting for Huen Hung as from the 24th November, 1973. Mr. Mo, in his evidence, said as far as he was concerned, it was only on the night of the 28th March, 1974 (when he was called to the airport where Huen Hung was arrested) that he regarded Huen Hung as his client. Mr. Mo said that, at the airport on the 28th March, 1974 the 6th accused was "the Counsel" but he did not know whether the 6th accused had been briefed by any firm of solicitors up to that time. Mr. Mo testified that insofar as the 24th November, 1973 was concerned he was then retained on behalf of Mrs. Huen who was concerned with certain landed properties in her name. The 6th accused said he appeared for Huen Hung in court on two occasions in July, 1974 but he later withdrew from the case - then he corrected himself and said he wouldn't say he withdrew from the case but that he receive no further instructions from Mr. Peter Mo. In his interview with Mr. Sutherland on the 10th September, 1975 on this point, the 6th accused said, when asked whether he eventually represented Huen Hung at his trial: "I did, not at his trial, no. Prior to the trial I appeared for him on bail application but eventually Charles Ching the Q.C. took over with a junior Caesar Wong. I did appear at his trial". I don't quite understand that last sentence. Then he went on to say: "Because I've known this chap for quite some time, I told him it wouldn't be a good idea if I appeared - if I succeeded well and good in his defence but if I should fail in his defence, it's liable to create misunderstanding and bad feeling. I didn't want to represent someone whom I knew for from say time back in the past, you see".

88. The 6th accused said he saw Huen Hung more often after the mid-October meetings than he did before and he said that on two occasions after Huen Hung had been arrested he played mahjong with him. He was reminded in cross-examination that he thought Huen Hung was guilty of corruption and he was asked whether he thought it wise to play mahjong with Huen Hung after he was arrested and the 6th accused replied "He wanted to play mahjong - I agreed what's wrong with that?" He was again reminded he suspected Huen Hung of being guilty of corruption and he was asked whether he thought it wise to have played mahjong with Huen Hung after his arrest and the 6th accused replied: "I did not think it wise or not - if a person has to think if what he does is wise or not, there is no point".

89. The 6th accused said that on the morning of the 10th September, 1975 he was in No. 2 Court of the South Kowloon Magistracy. The case was adjourned till 2.30 p.m. As the 6th accused walked out of the court room sometime after 9 a.m. two persons whom he subsequently learnt were Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Guy of the Independent Commission Against Corruption approached him and said they wanted to speak to him about a client of his. The 6th accused was surprised and replied: "Surely this is privileged?" Either Mr. Sutherland or Mr. Guy said "It may or may not be". The 6th accused asked for further particulars but said he was not told anything. The 6th accused said "alright" but that he had another application to make at the Western Magistracy. The 6th accused, Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Guy were driven to Western Magistracy where the 6th accused made an application in Court. When he came out of the court room Mr. Sutherland or Mr. Guy suggested that the interview take place either in the 6th accused's Chambers or in a restaurant. The 6th accused suggested it would be more convenient to go to Hutchison House. They proceeded to the Offices of the Independent Commission Against Corruption where the 6th accused was taken, he thought, to Mr. Sutherland's office. The 6th accused thought they wanted him to assist them in their investigation of someone. The interview between the 6th accused and Mr. Sutherland was tape-recorded, unknown to the 6th accused, but the 6th accused was aware that Mr. Guy was taking notes. The interview took the form of questions and answers. The first question by Mr. Sutherland was:

to which the 6th accused replied:

90. The 6th accused was asked by his Counsel why he specified "Police officer" to which he replied, "There was the Independent Commission Against Corruption wanting to know something about someone - first thing that came to my mind was a police officer". The 6th accused said he had a lot of police officer clients involving corruption. Later he mentioned that Mr. Peter Mo had briefed him on behalf of Ho Hei, the predecessor in office of Wan Hin-kai (from whom Huen Hung admitted receiving corrupt monies) but that he subsequently received no further instructions. His Counsel took the 6th accused through various passages on pages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and other subsequent pages in which the portions referred to were marked "A" to "O".

91. The 6th accused was cross-examined by Counsel for the Crown on his trip to Macau with his son, Mrs. Huen and Connie. The 6th accused described the Crown's suggestion (based on Huen Hung's and Chan's evidence) that he went to Macau with Mrs. Huen to check the immigration stop list as "childish". Mr. Chandler pursued what he called the "childish aspect" of the 6th accused's answer and suggested that had Huen Hung seen his wife stopped it would then have been open to Huen Hung to escape from Hong Kong by other unusual means and the 6th accused replied that this was a matter for Huen Hung. He was pressed by Mr. Chandler and the 6th accused agreed it would have been open to Huen Hung to take unusual steps to leave the Colony if he saw his wife stopped by the immigration authorities. Mr. Niamatullah's first question to the 6th accused was: "You have heard the evidence of Huen Hung that he considered you an intimate friend?" to which the 6th accused replied "No, we were not close". However, when he was cross-examined by Crown Counsel about what the 6th accused had stated were the duties of a barrister and Mr. Chandler referred to the 6th accused's evidence where he said that after Huen Hung's arrest and believing Huen Hung to be corrupt, they played mahjong together, the 6th accused, had replied, inter alia, that he (Huen Hung) was "a long standing friend over many years". He was challenged by Mr. Chandler on this point: Q. "I thought before October, 1973 Huen Hung was a mere acquaintance" and the 6th accused replied, inter alia, "Never close over many years - he was friend of a sort".

92. The 6th accused said that when he took Huen Hung to see Mr. Peter Mo in November, 1973 he thought he would be briefed for Huen Hung's defence but the 6th accused said that subsequently he changed his mind. The 6th accused was asked: "So no question of any professional relationship between you and Huen Hung on the 16th and 17th October, 1973?" and the 6th accused replied that this was correct but that he had "regularized" the position by having Chan present. It was suggested that the mere presence of a solicitor's clerk did not regularize the position and the 6th accused replied: "Why do you say that?" He was asked why he did not send Huen Hung to see a solicitor and the 6th accused replied to the effect he did not think his meeting with Huen Hung was irregular. He was asked: "How did you expect the presence of Chan regularised the matter?" and the 6th accused replied: "Because Huen Hung said he wanted my professional assistance and he asked me to arrange to have a solicitor or solicitor's representative present". The 6th accused was asked if he would be surprised if Gunston and Chow were to say they had no such client as Huen Hung and the 6th accused said he would not be surprised - for, as he put it: "As we all know Chan is a rogue - Chan may have pocketed the money". He was then asked: "Are you saying you learnt he (Chan) was a rogue after the 16th and 17th October?" and the 6th accused said "yes, and when he butted in".

93. The 6th accused said that as far as he remembered nobody on the 16th October stayed or went out to the balcony. The 6th accused described how they were grouped around the coffee table on the 16th October - the 6th accused had his back to the verandah and he indicated someone might have got up and walked to the verandah. The 6th accused said he did not recall whether the television was on - he said Connie was not watching television - he said Connie overheard the conversation that evening. The 6th accused said that he personally had no recollection of Connie being present at the meeting on the 16th October. He said he had discussed this matter with Connie and he had obtained a lot of information from her. Connie did not give evidence. The 6th accused said he did not know that at the time when he was being interviewed by Mr. Sutherland, that Connie had been present at the meetings in his flat. The 6th accused testified that Connie took no part in the discussions but he conceded that a person could be an active participant without saying a word. The 6th accused referred a number of times to the fact that the happenings in October had taken place over two years ago and he made mention on at least two occasions that some persons had total recall, others partial recall and others still who had no powers of recall. He said that on the 16th October, he suspected that Huen Hung was coming to see him regarding a matter involving corruption. Mr. Chandler asked: "And you were told around the coffee table that the Anti-Corruption were investigating Wan Hin-kai?" Answer "Yes" Q. "You would have thought Wan Hin-kai was involved in corruption?" A. "Certainly in view of what was said, that came to my mind - Huen Hung said Wan Hin-kai was being investigated and that Huen Hung was afraid of being investigated". The 6th accused said he did not accept that what he did was unethical. He said that as long as there was a solicitor or a solicitor's representative present, one could talk about these matters. I am not concerned, in this case, whether the 6th accused acted ethically or otherwise. The 6th accused said that the meeting on the 16th October, was not a conference - he was simply lending a sympathetic ear and he expected Chan "to take over the matter". The 6th accused said he did not, in the true sense, advise but what he said to Huen Hung could be construed as advice. He asked Huen Hung for an explanation but it was Wan Hin-kai who answered. He was asked whether he accepted that "these people" came to him for advice as to how to conceal what was in fact squeeze money and the 6th accused answered that it may well have been so but that they did not say so.

94. In answer to a question by Crown Counsel, the 6th accused said that Huen Hung did not say he was corrupt but he, the 6th accused, knew he was corrupt. The 6th accused then corrected himself, and said he suspected Huen Hung was corrupt. He was referred to a reply on page 8 of Exh. P3 in which he said, inter alia, "I don't like the solicitor's clerk putting their finger in the pie". The 6th accused said, and I quote: "The pie I am talking about here is that he (Chan) butted in by suggesting that Mrs. Huen should purchase certain newspapers dealing with horses and dog tips and to swot it up for the purposes of fabricating evidence".

95. I come now to evaluate the evidence in this case.

96. Huen Hung is at present serving a 3 ½ year term of imprisonment, having pleaded guilty before this Court to an offence under Section 10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance on the 18th December, 1974. Huen Hung, as already mentioned, was unable to say how long he had been a corrupt police officer as he had been 35 years in the Force. There is no doubt in my mind he was a very corrupt officer for very many years, long before 1972. Furthermore, as his evidence discloses, he was influenced in his decision to give evidence in this case because he had been granted immunity.

97. Chan Lik-shan pleaded guilty in early 1975 to four charges of obtaining money by deception and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment suspended for three years and ordered to repay the complainant $15,000 by instalments. It would appear that all defence counsel were shown a copy of the agreed facts in that case, but this Court has not seen that document. The learned magistrate who imposed that sentence must have been aware of all the facts of that case and, in his judgment, the facts did not warrant an immediate custodial sentence. Other than those convictions Chan has no previous convictions.

98. It was not disputed in this case that Chan reported to the Independent Commission Against Corruption on his own initiative, matters which, in effect, led to the prosecutions in the present case. Mr. Tyerman of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, testified that it was Chan who contacted the Commission in late 1974 and supplied them with Exh. P.4 A, B and C. Chan testified that when he first contacted the Independent Commission Against Corruption he said to them: "I do not come here for assistance - I come here with no conditions". This was confirmed by Mr. Typerman who said Chan asked neither for assistance nor advice in the case pending against him although on the third day of the interview when asked if he wanted anything, Chan said he wanted an air ticket to London to see his brother. There is no evidence that the Independent Commission Against Corruption or any other authority acceded to, or made any promise, in respect of that request. Chan was interviewed and questioned by Mr. Tyerman for three consecutive days at the Commission headquarters which resulted in an 18 page statement in English. When questioned by Mr. Yap for the 1st accused as to the contents of his statement to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Chan asked if he could take the statement out and read it but Mr. Yap did not avail him of that offer. Mr. Tyerman said that Chan had said he had contemplated reporting to the Commission for some considerable time before he actually contacted the Commission. Chan was granted immunity by Mr. Chandler in open Court, but, as I have had occasion to mention before, I formed the very strong impression that Chan would have given the same evidence had he not been granted immunity. Chan told Mr. Niamatullah that he was surprised when Crown Counsel granted him immunity. In my considered opinion, he was influenced very little, if indeed he was influenced at all, by considerations of immunity.

99. Yuen Ka-chai was originally a named accused in the first charge but the Crown on the 18th December, 1975 entered a nolle prosequi and on the same day, his Counsel Mr. Patrick Yu conveyed to him the Crown's grant of immunity provided he gave full and true testimony in this and any subsequent trial. I have no doubt the immunity granted him influenced him in the evidence he gave. I accept Yuen's evidence that on the 3rd August, 1972 he opened the bogus account with Wan Hin-kai as an authorized signatory. I have no doubt whatsoever that when he opened the bogus account on the 3rd August, 1972 at Wan Hin-kai's request he must have strongly suspected, at the very least, that that account might or would be used for some improper purpose, including possibly as a vehicle for corrupt monies and that that suspecion or knowledge must have been re-inforced when he heard the conversation between Fung Kwok-leung and Wan Hin-kai in the Coffee Shop of the Bayview Hotel in Manila on the 3rd August, 1973. I accept Yuen's evidence that he was present on the 17th October, 1973 at the 6th accused's flat when he said he heard the 6th accused say that if Wan Hin-kai were not in Hong Kong the Anti-Corruption would have no way to prosecute Wan Hin-kai and that if Wan Hin-kai could not be prosecuted then Huen Hung also could not be prosecuted. Although there is no direct evidence that Yuen agreed to the pursuance of that advice, I am certain he agreed to that course of action and intended that that advice should be acted on. The inference that agreement has been reached is frequently the only logical conclusion. As was stated in R. v. Hunt (1820) 1 St. Tr. (n.s.) 171 at 437:

"If the circumstances are such as imperiously call upon you to say that they could not have occurred but in pursuance of previous conspiracy and plan between the parties, then that implies that there must have been such previous plans, and therefore, will entirely warrant the conclusion of conspiracy".

100. I have seriously weighed the quality of the evidence of Chan, Huen Hung and Yuen Ka-chai against the context of their testimony.

101. Chan gave his evidence in an air of complete resignation - this was so marked that Mr. Niamatullah suggested to him he was a fatalist, or words to that effect. He gave his evidence calmly, and cross-examination left him completely unruffled. He was unshaken in cross-examination on any point of substance except as regards the debit note, Exh. D1 but I am very much inclined to the opinion that he had forgotten that note.

102. Huen Hung, although described by Defence Counsel as arrogant and evasive, did not give me that impression. The only time he showed anything which, in my opinion, could be described as approaching "arrogance" was when he was asked whether he thought $250,000 a large sum of money to which Huen Hung replied this was relative and he named a well-known personality reputed to be very rich and also a former police officer who was found to have accumulated some six million dollars. Huen Hung's attitude in the witness box, is, in my view, well-illustrated by an answer to Mr. Niamatullah:

103. In my view, that last sentence of Huen Hung's reply was descriptive of the manner he gave his evidence - he was steady and calm. He, like Chan, was unruffled in cross-examination although the questions were sometimes tinged with hostility so much so that Huen Hung on at least two occasions asked a defence counsel to please lower his voice, and on another occasion he asked the same counsel not to show his temper. He like, Chan, was unshaken in his evidence on any matter of substance.

104. Yuen Ka-chai gave me the impression he thought his presence in Court and his evidence were superfluous in the sense that he thought he could be of little assistance as he had never operated the bogus account and for that reason this case really didn't concern him at all.

105. As regards Yuen's evidence, I accept his evidence that he opened the bogus account and made Wan Hin-kai an authorized signatory of that account. I believe Yuen's testimony of the conversation he heard at the Bayview Hotel on the 3rd August, 1973 and I believe Yuen as to what he said he heard at the 6th accused's flat on the 17th October. I do not believe his evidence that he accepted Wan Hin-kai's explanation for the opening of the bogus account and I do not believe his testimony as to what took place in the Lee Gardons Hotel. In fact, in reaching my decision, I have placed little reliance on Yuen's evidence. I would have reached exactly the same conclusions I have without having considered any of Yuen's evidence.

106. I have warned myself, in respect of the whole of the evidence given by Huen Hung, Chan and Yuen, that it would be dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of any of these persons and that the evidence of these witnesses cannot corroborate one the other. Having carefully studied the demeanour of Huen Hung and Chan and the manner in which they gave their evidence, I have come to the conclusion that without any doubt that they were speaking the truth as they remembered it when they gave their evidence. I fully appreciate that there are discrepancies between them as to certain matters, but, in my opinion, none of those matters related to evidence which I considered went to the root of any of the charges in this case.

107. There was no suggestion, much less evidence, that Chan and Huen Hung had met and concocted the evidence they were to give. There is no evidence that after Chan had obtain Huen Hung's entry permit into Taiwan in late 1973, that they ever met.

108. Chan was interviewed by Mr. Tyerman of the Independent Commission Against Corruption on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th December 1974 and Huen Hung was sentenced to prison on the 18th December, 1974. The accused in this case were not arrested until the latter part of 1975.

109. I adopt, with respect, the remarks by McMullin J., in the case of R. v. Godber (1975) H.K.L.R. 326 at 352/3 where he said:

"It is difficult to see, however, in the absence of malicious and positive concoction, two stories sharing so marked a degree of general coincidence as to time, place, purpose and sequence could have emerged. Again, if there was any positive concoction, it is difficult to believe such inconsistences as there were would have not been smoothed out altogether or, at least, rendered more plausible in their character".

110. I am satisfied, by which I mean, of course, that I am satisfied to the extent that I am sure, that Huen Hung, two or three months before the mid-October meetings in the 6th accused's flat, saw the 6th accused at his flat at least several times in connection with the Anti-Corruption investigations into his and/or his wife's affairs, that on the 16th October, 1973 he met Wan Hin-kai and the 1st accused in a restaurant at Wan Hin-kai's request and that he also, at the request of Wan Hin-kai, arranged for him and Wan Hin-kai to see the 6th accused that evening, which they did, including the 1st accused. I am satisfied that the 6th accused asked Chan to attend that evening and that he asked Chan to treat what he termed "the business" as though it came from him (Chan) and also that there was discussion between the 6th accused and Chan as to the sharing of fees. I am satisfied that at the meeting on the 16th October, Wan Hin-kai mentioned that Fung Kwok-leung collected corrupt monies from illegal establishments in Kowloon West. I am satisfied the monies collected from illegal establishments by Fung were paid into the bogus account and that these were in return for non-interference by members of the Unit. I accept the evidence of Chan that the 1st accused said he collected monies for his brother Wan Hin-kai and I am satisfied that these monies were also collected by the 1st accused from illegal establishments in return for non-interference by members of his brother's Unit, including Wan Hin-kai.

111. I do not believe that the 1st accused went to the verandah when He heard Huen Hung say that he was being investigated by Anti-Corruption and that Wan Hin-kai might be implicated in those investigations.

112. I am satisfied that Wan Hin-kai was not at the 6th accused's flat on the evening of the 17th October, 1973 and that the 1st accused was there primarily because he was involved in the conspiracy the subject matter of the 1st charge.

113. I am satisfied that he cashed the 29 cheques given to him by his brother, Wan Hin-kai in pursuance of the conspiracy the subject matter of the first charge knowing the same to be the proceeds of corrupt monies obtained from illegal establishments in return for non-interference by Wan Hin-kai and other members of the Unit.

114. I was unimpressed by the demeanour and the manner in which the 1st accused gave evidence. I was similarly unimpressed by the 2nd, 4th and 5th accused. I am satisfied that the Crown has proved the guilt of the 1st accused in respect of the 1st charge beyond all reasonable doubt.

115. As regards the 2nd accused, I accept Mr. Tsui's and Mr. Colin Craig's evidence that at the offices of the Independent Commission Against Corruption the 2nd accused denied the signatures on Exh. P.92 and P.123 were his and that he maintained he was framed. Although not accomplices, I have warned myself of the danger of convicting the 2nd accused on the evidence of the three witnesses, PW17, PW19 and PW20, or any of them, in that these witnesses may have had some purpose of their own to serve in giving the evidence they gave. Notwithstanding that warning, I accept without hesitation their evidence relating to the instructions which they said the 2nd accused gave them on or about the 18th March, 1973. I am satisfied the 2nd accused cashed the two cheques Exh. P.92 and P.123 in pursuance of the conspiracy, the subject matter of the first charge knowing the same to be the proceeds of corrupt monies originating from illegal establishments in return for non-interference by Wan Hin-kai and other members of the Unit. I am satisfied that the Crown has proved the guilt of the 2nd accused in respect of the 1st charge beyond all reasonable doubt.

116. With regard to the 3rd accused, although I am satisfied that Huen Hung made the statement implicating the 3rd accused on the 12th January, 1976 in the circumstances testified by Mr. Tsui, I have been unable to reach that certainty of mind regarding the guilt of the 3rd accused which the law requires. Whilst I do not disbelieve Huen Hung's evidence on this point, the fact that this statment was made only two days before this case resumed on the 14th January, 1976, has left me with a nagging doubt. For that reason, I find the 3rd accused not guilty on the first charge and he is hereby discharged.

117. As regards the 4th accused, I believe the contents of the cautioned statement he made, Exh. P.16 to be true and that the 18 cheques he received from Wan Hin-kai were in pursuance of the conspiracy the subject matter of the first charge knowing the same to be the proceeds of corrupt monies from illegal establishments in return for non-interference by Wan Hin-kai and other members of the Unit. I am satisifed that the Crown has proved the guilt of the 4th accused in respect of the 1st charge, beyond all reasonable doubt.

118. As regards the 5th accused I am satisfied he signed Mr. Tsui's notebook Exh.P.306 and that Exh. P.9 is a cautioned statement voluntarily made by the 5th accused and taken in the circumstances testified to by Mr. Tsui. I accept Mr. Tsui's evidence that it was his practice to take cautioned statements from accused persons by writing at the very top of the page, as was done with Fung Kwok-leung's statement Exh. P.307. I do not believe the 5th accused's evidence that the statement was manufactured over his signature. He was a police officer of 12 years' standing and I cannot believe, and I do not believe, he was tricked in the manner suggested by him. I am satisfied that the 5th accused cashed the 8 cheques for Wan Hin-kai in pursuance of the conspiracy, the subject matter of the first charge knowing that the same to be the proceeds from illegal establishments in return for non-interference by Wan Hin-kai and other members of the Unit. I am satisfied that the Crown has proved the guilt of the 5th accused in respect of the first charge beyond all reasonable doubt.

119. As regards the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th accused in respect of the first charge, I have come to the irrestible conclusion that these accused must have known that other persons in the Unit were involved in the conspiracy other than Wan Hin-kai, and I find the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th accused guilty on the first charge.

120. It gives me no pleasure to say I was unimpressed by the demeanour of the 6th accused. Apart from his proclivity to talk too much, to use the 1st accused's words, he was not only aggressive but, at times petulant. Such remarks as "I am not a child", "I am not a pychiatrist", "I was there, you weren't" in answer to Mr. Chandler for the Crown left me unimpressed. I thought many of his answers in cross-examination were evasive. When asked, for example, whether he thought it wise for him, as a barrister, after Huen Hung was arrested, to have become more friendly with him, and believing him to be corrupt, to have played mahjong with him, he answered: "He asked me to play - I agreed, what's wrong with that?" I am satisfied that after the meetings on 16/17th October, 1973, not only did He believe Huen Hung to be corrupt but he was told, in some detail, of the scheme operating in the Unit and that he knew, as a fact, from what Wan Hin-kai and Huen Hung had said, that both those officers were corrupt.

121. Coming to the second charge I accept the evidence of Huen Hung and Chan Lit-shan that the 6th accused, on the evening of the 16th October, 1973 at his flat advised Wan Hin-kai to leave the Colony as soon as possible and that those present (including the 1st accused) agreed with that advice and intended it should be acted upon and I also believe Huen Hung, Chan Lik-shan and Yuen Ka-chai that this advice was repeated by the 6th accused on the 17th October, 1973.

122. I am aware of Mr. Lo Kam Chuen's evidence relating to the mechanics of entry to Taiwan and I am aware that Wan Hin-kai's departure card dated the 18th October, 1973 indicates his ultimate destination as Taipei/Tokyo. I do not know whether Wan Hin-kai, as a precaution or otherwise, had previously obtained an entry permit into Taiwan valid as at the 18th October, 1973, but I am satisfied that it was as a direct result of the 6th accused's advice on the 16th October, that he left Hong Kong on the 18th October, 1973. I accept the evidence of the 1st accused that on the 18th October, Wan Hin-kai's wife telephoned him to tell him that his brother had left Hong Kong that morning and asking him to fetch Wan Hin-kai's car from a garage and to drive it to her house. I also accept Yuen's evidence that after Wan Hin-kai's departure he sent Wan Hin-kai's personal effects to him. This has led me to the irrestible conclusion that Wan Hin-kai's precipitated departure from the Colony (even though he may have previously anticipated the possibility of going to Taiwan and had obtained an entry permit for that purpose) was the direct result of the 6th accused's advice to him. I also accept Chan's and Huen Hung's evidence that the 6th accused suggested that the best thing would be for the Huen Hungs to go away "for a while" or "for the time being" and that this suggestion was agreed to by those present (including the 1st accused) and that it was agreed by those present that Chan should get entry permits to Taiwan for the Huen Hungs "just in case". I also accept Chan and Huen Hung's evidence that subsequently entry permits for Mr. and Mrs. Huen Hung to enter Taiwan were obtained through the Skal Travel Service Ltd.

123. I also accept Chan's and Huen Hung's evidence that the 6th accused suggested going to Macau with the Huen Hungs to test whether they were on the stop list and that those present agreed to this course and intended it should be acted upon. I also accept that Mrs. Huen Hung went, on the 18th October, 1973, to Macau with the 6th accused, his son and Connie and I am satisfied the purpose of that visit was to test whether Mrs. Huen Hung was on the stop list.

124. I am satisfied that these suggestions by the 6th accused and agreed by those present (including the 1st accused) knowing or believing Wan Hin-kai and Huen Hung to have committed criminal offences, were intended to impede the apprehension or prosecution of Wan Hin-kai and Huen Hung. In the circumstances, I find the 1st and 6th accused guilty of the second charge.

125. As regards the third charge I accept Chan's and Huen Hung's evidence that on the 16th October, 1973 the 6th accused advised Huen Hung to say that, as regards the cheques received by him and paid into his wife's and son's accounts, such monies were derived from running an off-course betting business operated by Mrs. Huen Hung, Wan Hin-kai and Fung Kwok-leung, and I am satisfied the 6th accused when giving such advice, knew or believed that Huen Hung had committed an arrestable offence and intended by his advice to impede the apprehension or prosecution of Huen Hung. I am satisfied that he had no lawful authority or excuse in giving that advice. I am satisfied that the Crown has proved the guilt of the 6th accused on the 3rd charge beyond all reasonable doubt.