The Queen v. John Simon Wilson and Others

DCCC000069/1977

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CASE NO. 69 OF 1977

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

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

Coram: Judge Bewley, D.J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 24 August 1977

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

JUDGMENT

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

All 6 defendants are charged with two charges of conspiracy contrary to Common Law. In the 1st charge it is alleged that John Simon WILSON, Superintendent in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, HON Fai, Station Sergeant in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, LO Lai-choi, Sergeant 5230 in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, LEUNG Ka-lung, Sergeant 6400 in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, LUI Sui-kee, Sergeant 8580 in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force and WAN Leung on divers days between the 1st day of January 1973 and the 30th day of June 1975, in this Colony, conspired together and with WONG Ping and with other persons unknown to accept, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, advantages, namely periodic sums of money from members of the public, as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of the said John Simon WILSON, HON Fai, LO Lai-choi, LEUNG Ka-lung and the said LUI Sui-kee abstaining from performing acts in their capacity as public servants, namely as police officers taking action in respect of possible offences. In the 2nd charge it is alleged that John Simon WILSON, Superintendent in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, HON Fai, Station Sergeant in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, LO Lai-choi, Sergeant 5230 in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, LEUNG Ka-lung, Sergeant 6400 in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, LUI Sui-kee, Sergeant 8580 in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force and WAN Leung on divers days between the 1st day of January 1973 and the 30th day of June 1973, in this Colony, conspired together with WONG Ping and with other persons unknown to obstruct the course of public justice in that the said John Simon WILSON, HON Fai, LO Lai-choi, LEUNG Ka-lung and the said LUI Sui-kee should act contrary to their public duty as police officers in relation to the administration of law.

1. D1-D5 are serving police officers, and according to an agreed statement produced by Mr. Tindall, a staff officer (PW13), they were all at some time between 1/1/73 - 30/6/75 connected in one capacity or another with the Emergency Unit, New Territories, Fanling. D1 is a superintendent and between 28/2/73 - 15/6/75 he was Superintendent/Operations/New Territories Headquarters. He was a staff officer with his office at Fanling and, among other duties, he was required to exercise general supervision over the Emergency Unit. He was not the officer in charge of that unit and was not concerned with its day to day activities. D2 was Station Sergeant, EUNT, during the whole of the relevant period. He was directly responsible to the officer in charge, EUNT. D3, D4 and D5 were attached to EUNT as sergeants for the following periods:- D3: 12/4/72 - 19/3/74. D4: 19/8/73 - 23/10/75. D5: 22/9/73 - 30/9/74. D6 is not a police officer.

2. Mr. Tindall also produced police general orders and standing orders (Exh. D1-D6), which establish that the responsibility for preventing and detecting crime in the New Territories is laid on Divisional Superintendents and Sub-Divisional Inspectors. This includes taking action against illegal gambling establishments and drug divans. The duties of the EUNT are also set out in these documents. It is clear that, unless specifically ordered to do so - of which there is no evidence in this case - the E.U. was not concerned with enforcement action against such establishments.

3. The Crown case stands or falls on the evidence of one man, Wong Ping, a former police officer who is now a fruit hawker. He is alleged to have collected money from drug and gambling stalls on behalf of D1-D5. He has been granted immunity from prosecution in respect of these charges on his undertaking to give "full and frank evidence" in this case. The story that Wong Ping told in chief is as follows.

4. He served as a police constable in Kowloon City from 1950-52, but resigned after a fight. About 10 years ago he met D1 when the latter began to patronise his fruit stall in Kowloon City. D1 became a regular customer and Wong sometimes delivered fruit to his flat, which was then also in Kowloon City.

5. At the end of 1973 Wong was offered employment at a Mongkok night club called the Club de Rich by the manager, a former police colleague called Chan Chi-bun. He was nominally a waiter, but had no official duties and was required only to be present for 1-2 hours in the evening. Also employed at this establishment were the father and brother of D1's wife and, on this account, D1 sometimes took his wife to the night club for a drink. On these occasions D1 would ask Wong to join them. They stopped coming to the night club some time in 1974, when Mrs. Wilson's father ceated to work there.

6. On one of these occasion, in early 1974, D1 told Wong that someone had "made him a sucker" and asked Wong to visit him at the police station. Wong agreed to help, but no more was said that evening. About a week later D1 again came to the night club but, although they had a drink together, no word was said about Wong helping D1. At a third meeting at the night club, in similar circumstances, D1 again asked Wong to go to his police station in the New Territories: Fanling Headquarters. Wong agreed and a date was arranged.

7. In due course Wong met D1 outside Fanling Headquarters and was escorted to the barrack room, where he met D2 and D6. D1 said "This is Major Hon Fai (referring to D2) - you people talk" and immediately left the room. D2 introduced D6 as 'Hay Kor' and said "You people fix it up" and himself left the room. Wong left the police station with D6 and they arranged to meet in a Tsuen Wan restaurant on the following Saturday.

8. They met as arranged at about noon and, after a meal, they went by car to San Hui near Castle Peak "to collect charges", as Wong put it. Wong tell the court that, in the course of that afternoon, the 2 men collected money from the operators of gambling stalls and opium divans, not only in San Hui, but in Sheung Shui, Fanling and Shatin. He does not know the name of any of these persons, but mentioned a certain Ko Lo, or tall man, at a greyhound stall in San Hui. This man's stall was in a side lane in a squatter area and Ko Lo handed D6 a newspaper packet, which Wong subsequently saw contained $21. More money was obtained from a fantan stall in a wooden but in San Hui. All the operators, here and in the other centres, were told by D6 to hand the money to Wong on subsequent Saturdays.

9. In Sheung Shui they visited about 10 stalls, some of which were gambling stalls and some drug outlets, from which an average of $30-50 was collected. The process was repeated in Fanling, where they visited 5-6 dangerous drug stalls and 3-4 gambling stalls. A total of $700-1000 was collected here. They left Fanling at about 3.00 p.m. and went to Sha Tin, where the procedure was slightly different. After visiting a number of gambling stalls and collecting the charges, they went to have tea at a teahouse. There were gathered about 10 dangerous drug stall owners and 2-3 gambling stall owners, who paid them an average of $50-70. One of these men gave them $210, of which $20 was for D6 and Wong personally. Wong remembers that one of these men at the teahouse was nicknamed Shek Lau-chai, another Chan Bun-wah and a third Tan Kei-cheung (spotty face). All had their newspaper packets ready and they also were briefed as to the change of collector.

10. On leaving Sha Tin, having agreed to meet again next Saturday, Wong and D6 went to Kowloon where they parted. D6 told Wong that there were so many stalls that they should do the rounds once more in order that Wong should become fully familiar with the collection procedure. The following Saturday they met again and the process was repeated. D6 told Wong that, from then on, he (Wong) was to be responsible for collecting the charges, but he gave Wong no instructions as to what he should do with the money.

11. Wong told the court that thereafter he collected about $9000 per month. He kept $1500 for himself and shared the remainder between D1 and the barrack sergeant, a man known to him as Sup Chai i.e. D3; D1's share was $4000 and D3 received between $3000-4000 per month.

12. Commencing in April, Wong personally took $4000 at the beginning of each month to D1's flat at Piper's Hill. On the first occasion D1 gave him a beer while Wong put the money, which was in a paper bag, on a table. This continued for about 11 months and on each occasion the amount was $4000.

13. Wong handed D3 his monthly share in the barrack room at Fanling. Sometimes however D3 came to his home in the middle of the month and, when this happened, Wong gave him money twice per month.

14. After 3-4 months of these arrangements D3 came to Wong's house with D5. Wong says that D5 was his friend and that they used to meet at the Police Club. D3 told Wong on this occasion that he was being transferred and that, from then on, Wong was to hand the charges to D5. The 2 visitors left and thereafter Wong carried on as before, except that he paid D5 instead of D3. These payments - also $3000-4000 per month - were made mostly at Wong's home, but sometimes at other places including the barrack room.

15. 3-4 months later - in August or September - D5 brought D4 to Wong's home and introduced him. He told Wong that he in turn was being transferred and that henceforth the charges were to be paid to D4. It was arranged that D4 would come to Wong's home and for the next 3-4 months D4 collected $3000-4000 once a month from Wong.

16. In January, 1975, however, when D4 came to collect his money, Wong explained that, due to increased police raids, 70-80% of the stalls had ceased operation and he had succeeded in collecting only $3500. There was accordingly no money for D4, but the latter did not appear to be upset and said it would save trouble. It is not clear from Wong's evidence whether D4 came again in February, but, in any event, after D4's last visit he and Wong went to visit D4's sick father in Kowloon City. Thereafter no more money was collected by Wong and at this point his examination in chief concluded.

17. Wong Ping admits that he was a drug addict until 1975. It may be that he still is one because on the afternoon of his second day in the witness box he began to exhibit the classical signs. He became dizzy, he was shivering and confused and an adjournment was necessary. Next day he had recovered.

18. Throughout his cross-examination his answers contained an abundance of contradictions and were in several instances unsatisfactory. He nonetheless continued to affirm that his story was essentially true, but he conceded that he was confused as to dates. A salient fact that emerged was that, although he could remember such things as collecting the money, his evidence was primarily dependent on his recollection of what was contained in the statement he made at Hutchison House. He had been shown this statement 3 days before he gave evidence and he had attempted to memorize it. He admitted that he was still ill at ease and that he was anxious to give evidence satisfactory to the prosecution.

19. The following additional pieces of evidence emerged from Wong Ping's cross-examination and in re-examination.

20. The following evidence was either contradictory or otherise unsatisfactory.

21. So much for the evidence of Wong Ping. It was agreed by counsel that the evidence given on the voire dire should be treated as evidence in the trial proper. This evidence concerned only D3 and the admissions he is alleged to have made prior to the confessional statement which has been admitted as Ex. P4. These are substantially the same as those contained in the statement.

22. All the other defendants were interviewed at Hutchison House, but none of them made a written statement. In the case of D6, however, it is alleged that he made an oral confession on 2 separate occasions. He was arrested on the 14th January and first interviewed at 10.00 p.m. that evening by Mr. Buckle (PW9), with Mr. Cheng Fong-ching (PW10) acting as interpreter. Relying on notes made in English by Mr. Buckle about 1 hour after the interview, these witnesses state that D6 at first denied any knowledge of corruption but, when after questioning he was told that he was disbelieved and would be detained, he said "All right. I admit. I collected money for Hon Fai. Let me go and I will tell you." There was then a general discussion about how D6 knew D2 and he was detained.

23. Next morning Mr. Buckle and Mr. Fong again interviewed D6, but this time he denied collecting for Hon Fai. This was a short interview at which Mr. Kung Po-Cheung (PW16) was also present. At 10.30 a.m. he saw a solicitor. At noon the same day Mr. Kung interviewed D6, Mr. Cheng, but not Mr. Buckle, also being present. Mr. Kung typed out in (in English) notes of this interview about 1 hour after it concluded at 1.15 p.m. According to these 2 officers D6 eventually admitted that Hon Fai had asked him to go and collect money from the drug divans. When it was pointed out to him that this was what he had already told Mr. Buckle, D6 replied "I did it only for friendship". Mr. Kung then asked him why he had denied his carlier confession, but D6 refused to say any more. Mr. Kung was the only ICAC officer who was able to give a substantially accurate account of an interview without referring to notes.

24. In the course of their interviews, D2, D4 and D5 all denied ever having met Wong Ping before and maintained their denials when they were confronted with Wong. It is alleged, however, that D5 made an admission after being shown a statement said to have been made by a captain in the Golden Crown Restaurant. This was during D5's 3rd interview with Mr. Buckle on 1st February, when Mr. Chan Tsang-ki acted as interpreter. After this interview Mr. Buckle made notes in English, together with Mr. Chan, from which both officers refreshed their memories. They testified that Mr. Buckle told D5 that the captain had told them that he had seen D5 and Wong Ping together at his restaurant and that they were friends. Mr. Buckle then showed D5 the statement and he read it. When he had finished D5 said "It was 2 years ago." Put, when further questioned, he said that the statement was incorrect. It was put to Mr. Chan that D5 had said "I cannot remember clearly" - not "It was 2 years ago" - and that Mr. Chan could not remember without the notes the precise words used by defendant. Mr. Chan's devastating answer was "Yes ..... because it was the first time he made a mistake. The words slipped out right from his mouth. I can remember very clearly." D5 had already been confronted with Wong Ping that morning. Wong Ping had been upset and had cried, but D3 denied knowing him.

25. The only admission relied on by the Crown in the case of D4 is that he is alleged to have replied, when asked "Is your father still living?". "Yes, he is seriously ill". This was relevant in connection with Wong Ping's evidence that he had accompanied D4 to see his sick father.

26. D2 is also alleged to have made admissions. He said he had been to D1's home to discuss "duty matters". D6 was a good friend. He remembered a meeting between D1 and D6 in the barrack room at Fanling, but he could not remember what it was about. He them said it was not a meeting: he was showing D6 around EUNT. A friend of D6 was present, but he did not know him. D2 was then asked if D1 had not arranged this meeting and his reply was "You had better ask him."

27. In the course of several interviews with Mr. Buckle D1 was initially reluctant to admit that he know Wong Ping, but he eventually described their relationship and said that Wong had only once been to his flat. He denied knowing D6. It is not alleged that D1 made any confession of guilt.

28. The remaining prosecution evidence consisted of articles found in the homes of D1 and D3. Ex. P5 is a telephone book found in D1's flat. Under the letter 'W' Wong Tsai's name appears opposite a number which has been altered. When taxed about this, D1 told the ICAC officers that the entry was probably made by his wife for shopping purposes. A diary (Ex. P8) was found in D3's home, in which there appears the name "Wan Hei", together with a telephone number. There was also found a photograph, apparently dated 25th October, showing D3 sitting with one arm around Wong Ping and the other around another man, in front of a table on which there were drinks. The fourth member of the group is a girl.

29. The Crown also called the proprietor of the Fong Wing Kee Restaurant, Fong Siu-tong. He identified Wong Ping from the photograph (P1) as a neighbour who was in the habit of using the telephone in his restaurant. He said however that on these occasions he was always alone.

30. The final prosecution witness was also a flop. He was the Golden Crown Restaurant captain already referred to - a Mr. Cheung Koi. He said he knew D5 as a regular patron of the restaurant. He also identified Wong Ping from the photograph as a customer who on rare occasions came to the restaurant with a large group, none of whom he know or could recognize. According to the summary of evidence, both these witnesses were in a position to link D5 to Wong Ping.

31. D1 gave evidence and 6 witnesses were called on his behalf. D1 first described his duties as Staff Officer/Operations and his relationship with E.U.N.T. He had very little to do with the actual running of the unit, which was the responsibility of the Chief Inspector-in-charge. His supervisory duty was limited to such matters as disciplinary proceedings and commendations, but he also acted as a channel for orders for the E.U. emanating from the District Commander. There were times throughout the period under review when he would have nothing to do with the E.U. because he was engaged on special duties. One of these duties was helping to plan the 1975 Royal visit to the New Territories. To this and he spent most of his time from November 1974 - May 1975 at New Territories Headquarters in Tsuen Wan and did not often visit his Fanling office.

32. To the best of his recollection D1 first met Wong Ping at Mr. Chan Chi-bun's wedding in 1960. He was living in College Road, Kowloon City, at that time and he frequently thereafter patronized Wong Ping's fruit stall, which was near his flat.

33. D1's father and brother-in-law were employed at the Club de Rich from its opening in April, 1973, until November of that year. During these months D1 visited the club, always accompanied by his wife, on about 6 occasions. His only reason for going there was to enable his wife to have a chat with her father and brother, but of course, while she was doing so, he would have a drink with Mr. Chan, the manager. D1 says he cannot swear categorically, but he believes he did see Wong Ping at the club. If he had seen him, he would have greeted him and expressed the normal courtesies, but he cannot recall his ever coming over to his table and having a drink. D1 denies having any of the conversations at the night club described by Wong Ping and, in particular, denies having invited him to meet him at Fanling. He also denies meeting him in the barrack room and introducing him to D2. So far as D6 is concerned, he first laid eyes on him at Hutchison House on the day he was charged.

34. D1 lives now at Calderott Road, Piper's Hill. He can recall one specific occasion when Wong Ping came to his house. This was when he bought a fish tank from a stall near Wong Ping's fruit stall and Wong Ping came with the latter to help with the installation. He believes however that Wong Ping sometimes delivered fruit ordered by his wife. He would describe his relationship with Wong Ping as that of a friendly customer. He had also seen him at the Police Club, Boundary Street, on the occasion of football matches.

35. D1 then gave an account of his interviews with Mr. Buckle and Mr. Biss on 13th and 14th January. He challenges the accuracy of Mr. Buckle's note-taking and relies on notes which he himself made. There are substantial differences. D1 alleges also that during the last interview Mr. Buckle reminded him that there was a section in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance - D1 thinks he mentioned section 26 - which allowed a judge to comment on the refusal of a defendant to answer questions. This had been denied by the ICAC officers.

36. Finally D1 was asked whether D2 had been to his home and he replied that, to the best of his recollection, he had attended a Christmas and New Year party, to which he had invited all EUNT officers and NCO's.

37. In cross-examination D1 repeated that he believed he had seen Wong Ping at the Club de Rich and that he recollected seeing him walking around a lot and not sitting down like a customer. He then said that he had a definite recollection of seeing him there. When asked if he had met him at a table, he replied "I did not meet Wong Ping at the night club." D1 considered that Wong Ping had exaggerated the friendliness of their relationship, but he admitted that he could think of no reason why Wong Ping should make false allegations against him.

38. The next witness was Chan Tze-bun. From 1947-60 he was a police officer and, as such, met Wong Ping in 1953-54 and D1 in 1955-56. Both attended his wedding party in 1960. Mr. Chan was manager of the Club de Rich from the opening on 1/4/73 until August or September, 1973. He recruited Wong Ping to keep order in the club because he was a friend and he is sure that he started work there in April, 1973. There was, however, never anything for him to do because there was never any trouble at the club. He was permitted to sit at the tables and drink with his friends, but he never noticed if Wong Ping ever did so. He himself however sometimes had a drink with him. Wong Ping was in fact quite a heavy drinker. Wong Ping did not attend the club every night. He was there several nights per week and on the other nights he sent a foki.

39. Mr. Chan said that he had also been responsible for employing Mrs. Wilson's father and brother on account of his friendship with D1. D1 and his wife came to the club several times while he was manager and he always had a drink with them. He never saw Wong Ping talking to D1 or having a drink at his table. He was quite sure of this. After he left the job he paid occasional visits to the club and on these "rare occasions" he saw D1 and his wife 1 or 2 times. In answer to a question by the Court Mr. Chan said that Wong Ping did not have the right to sit at a table with a customer.

40. Mr. Chan was succeeded as manager by Mr. Ki Shing-po, the next witness. He had started work in the night club as assistant manager in May, 1973. Mr. Ki confirmed that Wong Ping and Mr. Wilson's relatives were working there when he commenced work and that the latter both left in November, 1973. He said, however, that after he became manager Wong Ping sometimes attended the club less than once per month and that after September, 1973, he came less and less frequently. Before that he scarcely noticed his presence. Mr. Ki saw D1 and his wife only once or twice between May - November and he never saw Wong Ping sitting at D1's table.

41. In cross-examination Mr. Ki said that Wong Ping's job was just to sit at the bar, but that on rare occasions he sat elsewhere. He had seen him sitting at tables with customers before September, but very seldom. He is sure that he never saw him sitting with D1 because, although he did not know D1 well, he would have remembered if he had seen an employee sitting with an European.

42. At the time D1's wife gave evidence it was not stated that she was in the process of divorcing her husband, but it is now an agreed fact that she obtained a decree nisi the following day. They were married in 1972, but Mrs. Wilson had met Wong Ping when she was living with D1 in Kowloon City before their marriage and had bought fruit from him. They moved to Caldecott Road in 1973 and Mrs. Wilson remembers Wong Ping helping to install the fish tank. Sometimes she also ordered fruit for a party from him and he would deliver it. This is why she wrote his name and phone number in the telephone book (P1). His number had been changed and so she had altered it in the book. Wong Ping had not come to the house on a regular basis either with or without fruit.

43. According to Mrs. Wilson, they had been to the Club de Rich 6-7 times before her father and brother left in November, 1973. She had seen Wong Ping there, but never sitting with her husband. She knew that Wong Ping worked at the night club; she had smiled at him, but never actually spoken to him. Nor had she seen her husband speaking to him, but she usually went to see her father and brother.

44. The next witness was D1's amah, Chan Kan, who has lived at his home for 8 years. She identified Wong Ping from the photograph (P1) as a man who had been to the Calderott Road flat about 4 times. He had once helped to install a fish tank and he sometimes delivered fruit.

45. D1's last 2 witnesses were police officers. Mr. Eric Blackburn, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, was Deputy District Police Commander, NT, from January - November 1974. His evidence confirmed the earlier evidence as to D1's duties as Superintendent/Operations and the duties of E.U.N.T. He also testified as to the periods when D1 was working in Tsuen Wan. Mr. Blackburn said that, when he first came to the New Territories, D1's confidential reports were indifferent, but that, thereafter, his work greatly improved.

46. Lim Sik-yeung is now a Superintendent, but from January 1974 - August 1975 he was Chief Inspector-in-charge of EUNT. His evidence provided further confirmation of the duties of the unit. He said that he himself had never been offered corrupt money and had heard no hint of a corrupt syndicate in EU. He considered it unlikely that such a syndicate could have operated without the knowledge of himself and the Platoon Inspectors. He also said that there was a guard at the gate whose duty it was to stop and question visitors.

47. D2 gave evidence, but called no witnesses. He said he does not know Wong Ping and had not seen him before the confrontation at Hutchison House. He admits however that he did once have the duty of controlling crowds at football matches in Mongkok.

48. On 14th January this year Wong Ping was brought into his room at Hutchison House and asked by Mr. Buckle to identify him. Wong Ping said he knew D2 and that his name was Hon. He also said that D2 was a policeman, a major, who were "something like a cake" on his arm.

49. D2 admits knowing D6. He says he owns a stone hut in the New Territories, which he let to D6. D6 paid the rent to his wife and this is the only money he has ever received from D6. Apart from this transaction he has had nothing to do with D6.

50. D2 then gave his account of the interview with the ICAC officers during which he is alleged to have made admissions. He says this interview was on 13th January, not on 14th as stated by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Cheng. The latter admit that D2 was interviewed on 13th - the day of his arrest - but say that this particular interview was on 14th. Mr. Cheng is certain of this because he remembers that they went to arrest D6 after this interview. D6 was in fact arrested on the evening of 14th. When it was pointed out to the officers that the statement served on the defence is dated 13th, their reply was that this was an error. At any rate, D2 says that he was asked questions after he had been searched and his watch removed. This was presumably soon after his arrival at Hutchison House and before he had seen his solicitor. He says that part of the statement served on the defence contained the questions and answers recounted by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Cheng, but that the "other part" was "made up by them".

51. D2 said that, if he had been asked if he had been in EUNT in 1974, he would not have answered "yes, I was at Fanling". His answer would have been "EUNT". Nor would he have said that D1 was in charge, since that was not true. D2 denied that he was asked if he had had constant contact with D1, but admits that he was asked to describe their relationship. He admits going to D1's home, but only once, to a Christmas party, to which all NCO's were invited. He had not been asked if he had visited him about duty matters. He did not say that he had shown D6 around EUNT. D2 says this would have been impossible, because they had to go out on patrol. When asked about the meeting in the barrack room, he had several times replied "No such meeting."

52. In cross-examination it was put to D2 that he was asked "Will you answer any of my questions?" and that he had replied "I will speak to you officially and unofficially, but if I don't want to answer any question I will not." D2 first agreed that he had made this reply because he meant to tell him everything he know, nothing but the facts. He then said that he did not use these words. He admitted being asked "Who is Mr. Wilson?", but denied replying "He is now Divisional Superintendent, Western."

53. Counsel for the Crown then put to D2 all the questions alleged by the Crown to have been asked at this interview. D2 said that 31 of these questions were never asked and that several others were in different form or were asked at other interviews. Of the questions that he admitted were put in the form alleged, he said 11 of the recorded answers were incorrect. He only agreed entirely with 8 questions and answers as recorded by the ICAC officers.

54. D2 was then cross-examined as to why it was impossible for him to have shown D6 around the station and his answers were to the effect that when he was in his office he was too tied up with paper work. In re-examination he stated that, if he had been seen showing a civilian around, there might have been a complaint. That concluded his evidence.

55. The other defendants did not give evidence or call witnesses.

56. Before setting out the conclusions that I drew from the above facts, it will be convenient now to refer to the charges. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is agreement - agreement in this case to do the unlawful acts set out in the charges. It is immaterial whether anything is done in pursuance of the conspiracy, but overt acts that are proved against some of the defendants may be looked at, as against all of them, to show the nature and objects of the conspiracy. Further-more, if a conspiracy is formed and a person joins it afterwards, he is equally guilty with the original conspirators. The acts and declarations of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the common design may be given in evidence against any other conspirator. Finally, evidence of association may be probative of conspiracy. So much for the general principles. The burden of proving every ingredient of these charges and each defendant's participation in the conspiracy remains throughout on the Crown and the standard is that of beyond reasonable doubt.

57. It is submitted that there is no evidence that, as a result of the conspiracies, raids on the gambling stalls or drug divans, from which it is alleged that the defendants have received bribe money, were not carried out or that consequential charges were not laid. It is further submitted that it was not even the function of the EUNT, to which D2-D5 belonged at the relevant times and over which D1 had general supervision as a staff officer, to perform such duties. From the evidence of Mr. Tindall it is clear that, except in the event of special instructions from the District Commander, which were absent in this case, it is the function of divisional officers, not EUNT, to carry out such raids.

58. Counsel for the Crown counter this argument by saying that it is irrelevant whether more or less raids took place: the important factor is that it is a necessary inference that the money was given by the stallholders in order that such raids should not take place, or at least not so frequently.

59. Mr. Sedgwick submits that it is not open to the Crown to maintain this argument, since it is bound by the particulars given at the request of the defence at the commencement of the case. The sequence of events according to my record was as follows. After asking Mr. Edwards to state the names of the members of the public referred to in 1st charge, if known, Mr. Sedgwick then asked that the Crown specify what action the police officers were supposed to have taken in 2nd charge and also in what categories of offences. He further submitted that the defence was entitled to know, in precise terms, what it was that they had conspired to do.

60. Counsel for the Crown dealt with the matter of the names and then stated, "The action not taken was that raids were not made and charges were not laid: or at any rate not as many raids as should have been took place and not as many charges were laid as should have been. The kind of offences in which it is alleged action was not taken are illegal gambling and illegal opium smoking. It is clear that the public duty not being performed is the same matter - the duty to raid illegal establishments or charge people with offences. The Crown will ask the Court to draw the inference that money was paid to P.W.1 and handed on to defendants for this purpose." Mr. Edwards was in this reply clearly dealing with both charges. So far so good. He had defined "action" and "public duty" respectively.

61. Mr. Sedgwick then said, "How does that amount to obstructing justice? This connotes positive action. I wish to ask the Crown to make it clear that the further particulars now given indicate that the Crown's case is that it is alleged that there was a failure to make raids and lay charges. Is this the case we have to meet?" To this Counsel for the Crown replied "Yes" and Mr. Sedgwick submits that he is bound by this answer.

62. Mr. Edwards concedes that he was in error and says he should have said that the money was given in order that raids should not take place so frequently. But he maintains that any particulars given by the Crown must be read in conjunction with the particulars of the offences as charged. Accordingly the only way in which to look at the Crown's case, as particularized, in to read the particulars of the offences and then to add the words "namely to raid illegal establishments and charge people with offences." He submits that, when he gave the particulars, all he was trying to do was to answer the question "What action were the police officers supposed to have taken?"

63. In the case of Falconer-Attlee v. R. 58 CAR 1974 348 the Crown opened its case on the basis that appellant, charged and convicted of theft of a dog, had come by the dog innocently, but mistakenly, and later that day, having become aware that a mistake had been made, dishonestly appropriated the dog. The evidence however revealed that there was a very real possibility that the original taking had been dishonest. Counsel for the Crown, replying to a submission of no case, invited the Court to proceed with the case on the alternative bases and the learned judge accordingly left the two alternatives to the jury. The Court of Appeal held that this was wrong, that it was tantamount to adding 2nd count in the middle of the trial and that the Crown should not have been allowed to widen the scope of the attack at the close of the case for the prosecution in this way.

64. Falconer-Attlee is strong authority for counsel's proposition, but I would distinguish it from the present case. I agree with counsel for the Crown that the particulars must be read together with the charges: otherwise an absurd situation results. The essence of these charges is the agreement to receive bribe money. Failure to carry out raids, if proved, might amount to evidence of a conspiracy. If, however, a conspiracy to receive bribe money is proved by other means, it may be a necessary inference that defendants had the intention that, in consequence, fewer raids should be carried out because they would take no action. In fact, the evidence led by the Crown shows that the stalls were raided and that many of them were forced to close. That was however in no way attributable to the actions of defendants.

65. This is very different to the Falconer-Attlee situation where the prosecution could not have known the truth of the matter and where the alternative allegation, namely that the dishonest intention was present at an earlier stage, amounted to a different case altogether. Here there can be no question that the defence has been misled or in any way prejudiced.

66. S.10 of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap. 232, provides that the duties of the police force include (1) preventing and detecting crimes and offences and (2) apprehending all persons whom it is lawful to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exist. It is not right, therefore, to say that, although defendants were not specifically charged with the suppression of vice, they were entitled to ignore it, let alone profit by it, when it was brought to their attention. If they received money in the circumstances described by P.W.1, they must have known where it came from, were in a position to make further enquiries and to pass the information on to those officers whose duty it was to carry out raids. Failure so to do amounted (1) to abstaining from performing acts in their capacity as public servants, namely as police officers taking action in respect of possible offences and (2) to acting contrary to their public duty as police officers in relation to the administration of law. If the evidence is true, defendants and Wong Ping must have intended when they entered into the conspiracy that, on receipt of the money, D1-D5 would take no action. Otherwise they would have had to reveal their source of information to other police officers, which, for obvious reasons, was out of the question.

67. So far as the stallholders were concerned - the "other persons unknown" in the charges - it is also a matter of necessary inference that they handed over the money intending that, in consequence, there would be fewer raids by the police. Why else would they do so every week over a long period? Again it is a necessary inference that they had been led to believe that the money was going into the hands of the police, who would abstain from taking action against them, and that this is why they paid it. To persons such as this, a policeman is a policeman, and it was of no concern to them which particular branch of the force benefited, so long as the and result was satisfactory. This, therefore, must have been their intention when they entered into the conspiracy.

68. But Mr. Sedgwick submits that, since the reason why the money was given must be proved, and since it is circumstantial and a matter of inference - as conceded by the Crown - the court must be satisfied that guilt is the only inference. It is not enough, he argues, that the evidence is susceptible of such an inference. For the proposition that the inference may be weakened by coexisting circumstances he relies upon the case of Teper v. R. 1952 AC 480 and in particular the dictum of Lord Normand at p.489, "It is also necessary before drawing the inference of the accused's guilt from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference."

69. The Crown's case in Teper was that the accused, having insured his shop and stock for sums considerably above their real value, set fire to them with the intention of claiming against the insurance companies. It was clearly proved that the shop had been maliciously set on fire. The Judicial Committee held however that the insurance motive was not proved and thus, in Lord Normand's words, "..... the failure to prove motive ..... left the Crown with the heavy onus of satisfying the jury that the appellant wilfully destroyed his property without any proved prospect of gain." He went on to say, after recounting the circumstances of suspicion that pointed to the appellant, ".... But an intelligent jury ought not to omit to consider that any criminal who maliciously set fire to the appellant's premises might naturally have first acquainted himself with their contents and might also have maliciously tried to make sure of the destruction of the appellant's business books, either in order to embarrass the appellant or to throw suspicion on him." The evidence was therefore inconclusive and, as inadmissible and highly prejudicial hearsay evidence had been admitted at the trial, the Court held that the appellant had been deprived of a fair trial and allowed his appeal.

70. The co-existing circumstances referred to by Lord Normand were those that admitted of someone other than the appellant having set the shop on fire. That is not the situation in this case. Here the principal question is whether Wong Ping is telling the truth. His evidence as to the giving and receiving of the money is direct evidence and any weakness in it goes to the question of credibility. If the Court accepts his evidence what are the "co-existing circumstances" which might "weaken or destroy the inference" of a corrupt intention on the part of the conspirators? I see none. There is no other credible reason for the giving and receiving of the money. If there were any possibility, for example, of a police trap operated by defendants that would be such a co-existing circumstance, but the evidence does not admit of this or any other such hypothesis. It is only in the case of D2 that there is no direct evidence as to the receipt of money. His participation is therefore a matter of inference from his behaviour at the barrack room meeting. But there are no "coexisting circumstances" that might weaken this inference. Once the corrupt receipt of money by defendants is proved, there are likewise no circumstances to weaken the inference that it sprang from an agreement to take no action against the stallholders. I hold therefore that, if the evidence is true, the inference of guilt is irresistible.

71. I revert now to the facts of the case and in particular to the evidence of Wong Ping. It is necessary in my judgment to deal with the latter in 2 stages: firstly, the collection of the money and secondly, his payments to D1, D3, D4 and D5, together with his involvement with D2 and D6. Bearing in mind the criticisms referred to above and the comments of defence counsel, it is nevertheless impossible to get away from the fact that Wong Ping's description of how he collected the money, first together with D6 and later on his own, was immensely impressive. It rang absolutely true. Wong Ping himself is a far from impressive man; on his own admission he is a scoundrel of the first water. His evidence is tainted, in the sense that he has a motive for telling the court the same story as he told the ICAC 7-8 months ago - that of avoiding prosecution himself. On top of this, he admits that, so far as much of the story is concerned, he is no longer able to rely on his memory of the events that took place so long ago, but only on his - recently refreshed - memory of what is contained in his statement.

72. Yet, when one asks oneself why Wong Ping should have spun a false story to the ICAC, there is no satisfactory answer. We do not know under what circumstances Wong Ping came to be arrested or what was said to him by ICAC officers. There is evidence, however, that he was a very shaken and worried man on his release. He had made a confession and was facing prosecution. It may be that the question of immunity was raised at that early stage - we do not know - but he was certainly not sure that he would not be prosecuted until very much later. It is, in my judgment, inconceivable that the ICAC should have got hold of this pathetic little man and, having made up a story about collecting money from gambling stalls etc, should have bullied him into memorizing it for their own dishonest purposes. I utterly reject this hypothesis. In any case Wong Ping is apparently a man of little education and intelligence. I do not believe that he would have been capable of memorizing such a tale and then relating it to the court in the way he did. So far as the collection of the money is concerned, there is no risk of hidden dangers, as postulated by Mr. Sedgwick.

73. He was, of course, far from the perfect witness, as cross-examination revealed. I bear in mind, however, the fact that he was in the witness box for a very long time and was under a great deal of strain. He admitted that he was confused as to dates - even months - but had been pressed by ICAC to be specific. The events described took place a long time ago and I do not find Wong Ping's inability to remember a factor that destroys his essential credibility.

74. Some of Wong Ping's contradictions and admissions were of such a nature that they could only have been made through misunderstanding or lack of concentration e.g. his last answer to Mr. Sedgwick. Then there is the question of the date he is alleged to have started the collections - April, 1974. If this is wrong - and there is evidence which indicates that it is wrong - I do not consider that it follows that the story is a fabrication. In this connection I have regard to what has already been said about Wong Ping's intelligence and his confusion regarding dates. The same argument applies to his contradictory evidence as to when he made the last collection. It all happened a long time ago. I do not agree with counsel's suggestion that Wong Ping could not have made the collections in the time stated. As a long term resident of Castle Peak I am entitled to use my local knowledge of transport facilities and the distances between towns. Nor do I find it surprising that Wong Ping is unable to identify the givers, other than by a few nicknames. It was not the sort of transaction in which the social courtesies were likely to have been observed and I dare say the stall holders were not particularly anxious that their names should be known by anyone connected with the police. 2 years later it is hardly surprising if the same people were not to be found carrying on the same business: there is evidence that most of the stalls had been closed down by police action. The suggestion by counsel that law-abiding neighbours would have remembered such activities and assisted the ICAC in their enquiries does not bear close examination in the Hong Kong context. Mr. Lane submits that, if Wong Ping's story is true, he had sufficient time, during the months when he attended Hutchison House daily, in which to get it right and that there should have been no need to refresh his memory. But it would appear that Wong Ping's main difficulty is with dates and he was clearly equally troubled by dates at the time he made his statement.

75. In spite of all these vagaries and inconsistencies, I am satisfied that Wong Ping's evidence is intrinsically credible, so far as the collection of the 'black' money is concerned. However, since he is an accomplice, I direct myself that it is dangerous to rely upon his evidence in the absence of corroboration. The only corroboration that exists relating to this aspect of the case is to be found in the written and oral confessions respectively of D3 and D6, and this evidence may be used only against the maker of each statement. The danger of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is that he may have a hidden purpose of his own in giving false evidence. In the circumstances of this case, however, for the reasons given, I consider that the possibility of Wong Ping having invented the story of the collections is sufficiently remote for me safely to ignore it. As was stated by Lord MacDermott in Tumahole Bereng v. R. 1949 AC 253 at 265 "..... false evidence given by an accomplice is commonly regarded as more likely to take the form of incriminating the wrong person than of imagining the crime charged." A fortiori, where the accomplice has been granted conditional immunity. I therefore find as a fact, in the absence of corroboration, that Wong Ping is telling the truth about the collection of the money.

76. It does not necessarily follow that the rest of his evidence is true. In my judgment it is intrinsically credible, but there is a grave danger that Wong Ping may have reasons of his own, unknown to the ICAC or to the court, for implicating some or all of the defendants. It is possible, for example, that Wong Ping considered his chances of receiving immunity would be improved if he were to cast his net over a wide range of people. It is, furthermore, not inconceivable that there were prospects of receiving payment from the real villains in return for silence, thus providing an incentive to name innocent men. It is not known what was said to Wong Ping in Hutchison House. It is true that he was not offered immunity until much later, but it is possible that it was mentioned or that it was at least in his mind.

"Evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates him, that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also that the defendant committed it....." per Lord Reading in R. v. Baskerville 1916 2 KB 658 "It is for the jury to decide whether witnesses are creditworthy. If a witness is not, then the testimony of the witness must be rejected. The essence of corroborative evidence is that one credit worthy witness confirms what another credit worthy witness has said. The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible; and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible evidence." Per Lord Norris in DPP v. Hester 1972 3 AER 1056 at 1065. I direct myself accordingly.

77. Lies told by a defendant is the witness box cannot amount to corroboration. They only detract from the weight to be attached to his evidence, which is a very different thing. In certain circumstances however, lies told by defendants to the ICAC officers may amount to corroboration. It will depend on whether the lie gives to a proved opportunity a different complexion from that which such opportunity would otherwise have borne: Credland v. Knowler 1951 35 CAR 48. It is valid to ask why the man may have lied, for a suspect may have reasons for so doing which do not necessarily point to his guilt. A defendant may well feel for example that, if he admits to having known Wong Ping, suspicion will bear more heavily upon him and lead to his being charged and perhaps convicted. If however a false denial, concerning a prior meeting with Wong Ping, leads inescapably to the inference that he was in some way connected with the collection of the money, that would be evidence capable of amounting to corroboration.

78. In my ruling admitting D3's confessional statement in evidence I found as a fact that all the ICAC officers who gave evidence on the voire dire were telling the truth. It has been agreed that their evidence, and that of D3, should form part of the evidence to be considered on the general issue. No evidence has been given that casts doubt in my mind as to the correctness of my findings concerning the evidence given on the voire dire. I go further and state with confidence that the evidence of all the ICAC officers has been given bona fide. They were all very impressive witnesses. The interrogating officers revealed, without hesitation, the severity and depth of their questioning, but in my judgment they never overstopped the mark of fairness. There are errors and contradictions in their evidence, but they are relatively minor and do not affect the weight of their evidence. I utterly reject the suggestion that they have deliberately sought to build up a case against any of defendants or that they have dishonestly put words into defendants' mouths, or rather into their notes of the interviews.

79. This is not to say, however, that it would be safe to rely entirely on the accuracy of their evidence. For the most part, these officers had to rely on these notes in order to refresh their memories of what took place at the interviews. Only Mr. Kung (PW16) was able to give evidence to any great extent without having notes in front of him. For the most part, these notes were made immediately after the interviews, but in some cases there was an interval of 1 hour. Only in the case of Mr. Anderson's interview with D2 on 14th January and Mr. Carter's interview with D4 on 1st February, were notes actually made as the interview progressed. Ipso facto the notes made after an interval have less weight so far as the importance of any particular word or phrase is concerned.

80. Dealing first with D1, I accept the evidence of Mr. Buckle and Mr. Biss that notes were made after each interview. Failure to write up each interview before the commencement of the next would have lead to unnecessary confusion and I do not believe it happened. I reject D1's evidence where it differs substantially from that of the 2 officers. He was reluctant to answer questions initially, but he had been cautioned and this cannot be held against him. Failure to identify the name "Wong Ping" is only mildly damaging, because there is evidence that Wong Ping was called "Fruit Wong" or "Wong Tsai", which is in fact the name in D1's telephone book. But it is very puzzling that he didn't tell Mr. Buckle that he was in the habit of buying fruit from him and that this is really how he knew him. Instead he said he saw him from time to time on social occasions. One would also have expected D1 to have asked Mr. Buckle "Do you mean Wong Tsai?" He told Mr. Buckle that Wong Ping had only been to his house once, to deliver the fish tank. He now in his evidence says that this is not so and that he told Mr. Buckle that there may have been other occasions. This is not something that Mr. Buckle is likely to have got wrong and one wonders why D1 should have lied about it. His replies concerning Wong Ping's telephone number were satisfactory in the light of the evidence that Wong Ping did deliver fruit to Mrs. Wilson's order. I do not however accept D1's evidence that Mr. Buckle threatened him by misquoting section 26 of the Ordinance. This would have been a very stupid tactic for an ICAC officer to try on a police superintendent. D1 denied knowing Ah Hei (D6) and this is still his case. His denial contradicts what D2 is alleged to have told the ICAC, but nothing said by D2 is evidence against D1. This principle applies to all references to D1 by the other defendants. D1 was not asked many questions about the de Rich night club, but he admitted going there and having seen Wong Ping there.

81. From the above it is apparent that D1 has not told any lies to the ICAC which could amount to corroboration of Wong Ping's evidence. There is therefore no corroboration in his case. He has, however, told several lies which seriously affect his credibility. There are, moreover, reasons why Wong Ping should not have falsely accused D1. He had known him for many years. They met frequently. Although they occupied different stations in life, they were on friendly terms. D1 himself can think of no reason why he should have been named. It was D1 to whom Wong Ping tried to get a message via Mrs. Tsui on his release from Hutchison House.

82. What of his defence? The evidence concerning the Club de Rich was not impressive. It was all too glib. The witnesses - except Ki Ming-po - were his friends or were closely connected with him. Their evidence was contradictory and unsatisfactory. They were not in truth in a position to say that there had been no contact between Wong Ping and D1. It is unbelievable that, in the course of his visits to the night club, he would not have had a chat and a drink with Wong Ping. It is equally unbelievable that he would not be able to say for sure whether or not he had actually spoken to him. He had known him since 1960 and had been frequently in his company. I find that this evidence is untrue.

83. I don't place much weight on the evidence of Mr. Lim. He gave the stock answers expected. Even if he had known what was going on at EUNT, he would not have been prepared to admit it.

84. In the light of Mrs. Wilson's decree, more weight can be placed on her evidence, although, as pointed out by counsel for the Crown, she has an obvious interest in covering up for D1. She was a better witness as to what went on in her own house than in the Club de Rich. Her evidence regarding the ordering of fruit and the writing of Wong Ping's telephone number carried conviction but, since it is admitted that Wong Ping did bring fruit to the house, this does not take the matter any farther.

85. The amah's evidence was unshaken in cross-examination, but it came out too pat, particularly noticeable being the early mention of the fish tank. This also occurred in the evidence of D1 and his wife. I do not believe she would have remembered this so long ago in relation to a man she had seen less than 6 times: She was also too quick to identify Wong Ping in the photograph. She also has an interest in D1's acquittal.

86. There is no corroboration of Wong Ping's evidence concerning D1 and I again warn myself of the danger of convicting D1 without it. But Wong Ping has most reluctantly pointed the finger at D1 and the latter has told lies in his defence and he has told lies to the ICAC officers. I ask myself why. D1 is not a fool and I reject the possibility that he felt it too dangerous to concede that he had been hobnobbing at the night club with Wong Ping. His lie to Mr. Buckle about Wong Ping's visits to his flat is very damaging. Wong Ping's number was in his telephone directory and, as an old acquaintance and customer, he must have known if Wong Ping was still in the habit of delivering fruit to his house. Why should he deny that Wong Ping had been to Caldecott Road more than once, unless he had a guilty conscience concerning the man? I am nevertheless conscious that Wong Ping was in a position to frame D1, although the coincidental relationship between D1 and Wong Ping is really too remarkable. The collector for a New Territories syndicate has so many points of contact - football matches, social functions, fruit, Club de Rich - with Superintendent/Operations/New Territories, that the latter is the officer chosen to be framed. If Wong Ping had done so, however, he is not likely to have tried to get a message to D1 on his release from Hutchison House or to have been such a reluctant witness. It is in any case very doubtful if Wong Ping has the mental ability to concoct and stick to such a completely untrue story.

87. Wong Ping's description of the meeting in the barrack room was most convincing. There is no substance in the objection that he would have had to pass a guard at the gate. He was an ex police constable and he has testified that he used to visit his friends in Fanling. His evidence that he put the money on the table and that D1 gave him a beer was also convincing. These are things that one does not forget. I am satisfied that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Wong Ping's story as to D1's involvement in the plot is true and that the defence evidence concerning the Club de Rich and Wong Ping's visits to D1's flat is false.

88. D2 was interviewed by Mr. Anderson (PW3) on 14th January at 2.20 p.m. and Mr. CHENG Fong-ching (PW10) acted as interpreter. It was suggested to Mr. Cheng that this interview took place on 13th January - the day of D2's arrest - because this was the date on the statement that was served on the defence. Mr. Cheng denied this and stated that it was after this interview that he and Mr. Anderson went to arrest D6. He admitted, however, that D2 had also been interviewed on the 13th January. Mr. Anderson could not remember on which day the interview took place and he was not cross-examined. D6 was in fact arrested on 14th January and I find that on this point Mr. Cheng is speaking the truth and D2 is not. D2 admitted that on 14th January Mr. Anderson first attempted to interview him alone in English and that, when he found that D2 did not properly understand him, he called in Mr. Cheng. [The record of this interview is set out at pp. 296-299 of the case record and the record of the interview in English is at p.315.] I find that the notes made by Mr. Anderson, from which both witnesses refreshed their memories, accurately reflect what was said during these interviews. It is D2's case that most of these questions and answers have been fabricated by the ICAC officers. This is obviously untrue. Firstly, the whole interview flows smoothly; question follows answer in a natural progression. D2's version, as given in cross-examination, could not have taken place. Secondly, Mr. Cheng was unshaken in cross-examination and I believed his evidence. Furthermore, it would have been a considerable feat of composition to have constructed such an whopping lie as suggested by D2. Finally, D2 cut a very poor figure in the witness box. Not once did he look at the bench. Many of his answers were absurd, even on matters that were not likely to damage his case. e.g. "If I was asked if I was in EUNT in 1974 I would not have answered 'Yes. I was at Fanling.' Normally to such a question my answer would be 'EUNT'". Later in cross-examination, when the questions were put to him seriatim, it was apparent that he was lying. I am satisfied that it is proper to place weight on the replies that D2 gave in the course of this interview.

89. It is proved, therefore, that D2 admitted being present when D1 spoke to D6 in the barrack room, Fanling, that he couldn't remember what the meeting was for, that it was not a meeting, as he (D2) was only showing D6 around, that a friend of D6 was present by chance and that, when asked if D1 had arranged the meeting, he replied "You had better ask him."

90. D2's admission that there was such a meeting, coupled with the lies that he told the ICAC as to the surrounding circumstances of this meeting, are capable of amounting to corroboration and I find that they do corroborate the evidence of Wong Ping. In my judgment there can be no innocent explanation for such a meeting, nor any valid reason for D2 to tell lies about it. In this connection, I also put from my mind all references to D2 by D3 and D6 in their statements to the ICAC.

91. I have carefully considered the evidence of Wong Ping, that he recognized D2 at the barrack room, although he had seen him only once before. It seemed at the time as though he had something to hide concerning his previous encounter with D2. However, in his evidence, D2 himself admits that he was once on duty controlling crowds at football matches in Mongkok, as described by Wong Ping. He added gratuitiously that, when Wong Ping identified him in Hutchison House and was asked by Mr. Buckle what was his rank, he told Mr. Buckle "Like a cake on his arm. A major". D2 then said in evidence that, when he was on duty in Mongkok, he would have been wearing his Station Sergeant's arm badge. I also bear in mind that Wong Ping had been shown photographs of defendants, to which particulars were attached, before he identified them. I am nevertheless satisfied that Wong Ping correctly identified D2 as the man who had been in the barrack room that day. As pointed out by Counsel for the Crown, if Wong Ping had concocted a false story involving D2, he would be likely to have given it a little more embellishment by suggesting e.g. that he had given D2 money.

92. It is therefore proved that, before leaving the barrack room, D2 said to Wong Ping, "This is Hei Kor - you people fix it up." As stated above, having regard to all the circumstances described by Wong Ping, whose evidence I have accepted, the only inference that may be drawn is that D2 was a party to the receipt of corrupt money. No other meaning can be attributed to his words and behaviour that is consistent with innocence.

93. Corroboration of D3's involvement in the conspiracy is found in his dictated statement (Ex. P4A). It is in fact in itself a confession of guilt. No evidence has been given that has caused me to alter my view of the evidence concerning the taking of this statement. I therefore find as a fact that it was made by D3 in the manner set out in my ruling admitting it in evidence. It is now necessary to decide how much weight should be attached to it.

94. Mr. Lane submits that it would be unsafe to rely upon it in the light of Wong Ping's evidence that he continued to pay D3 for several months after the date when it is clear that he was transferred from Fanling. He points out that, when the summary of evidence and defendants' statements were served upon the defence, they were accompanied by defendants' career records. D3's record showed that he was with EUNT from 12/4/72 - 1/2/77. An amendment to this record, made at a later date, shows that D3 left EUNT on 19/3/74. Mr. Lane puts the question that, had ICAC been aware of the true position, would they have suggested other dates to Wong Ping, so that he might tailor his evidence accordingly? There is no evidence that, at the time Wong Ping told ICAC about D3, they had a service record of any kind at their disposal. Even if they had, there is nothing to suggest that ICAC would lend themselves to this sort of behaviour. It is already abundantly clear that Wong Ping is very vague about the relevant dates and I am satisfied that Mr. Lane's theory - and it is only conjecture - takes the matter no farther.

95. The Crown also relies upon oral admissions made by D3 before the taking of his statement. This was not made clear during the voir dire and, accordingly, I indicated to Mr. Lane that I did not consider it vital that there may have been minor discrepancies between Mr. Hui's (PW2) testimony and the transcript of the interviews supplied to the defence. In fairness to D3 I do not propose now to place any weight on the precise answers given to Mr. Hui before the statement was dictated. There is, however, nothing here that might detract from the written statement or cast any doubts on its genuineness and reliability.

96. It is indeed a very convincing document. It is lengthy and detailed and, at D3's request, it has been amended and enlarged upon substantially. D3 had no motive in telling ICAC lies inculpating himself and I am satisfied that I am entitled to place weight on the statement as a confession of guilt.

97. Apart from the evidence of Wong Ping, that he gave money monthly to D3, the photograph (Ex. P1) is evidence that the two men were on friendly terms. Wong Ping indeed knew D3 as Sup Chai. There is also the evidence of the diary (Ex. P8) that D3 knew D6's telephone number; this also tends to connect D3 with the conspiracy. These matters were not referred to by D3 in his evidence on the voire dire because they were not relevant to that issue. He has not given evidence in the trial proper and there is therefore no evidence to set against that of the Crown. I accept Wong Ping's evidence concerning D3.

98. It is convenient now to deal with D5. Wong Ping was emphatic that his acquaintance with D5 was not limited to watching him on the field of play at football matches. I am bound to say that the manner in which he said "We were friends" was enormously impressive. Why would he pretend to friendship, or even priof acquaintance, if it were not true? There was no more to be gained, from his point of view, in claiming that he knew D5, than there was in disclaiming prior acquaintance with D4. It is not in dispute that, when he was confronted with D5 in Hutchison House, he began to cry. This is persuasive confirmation that Wong Ping is telling the truth about his relationship with D5. It is not, in my view, open to the interpretation submitted by counsel, that he cried because his conscience was troubling him, except in the sense that he was upset because he had betrayed a friend. If he is the villain that the defence claims him to be, it is most unlikely that he would have broken down like this.

99. The Crown was disappointed in the two witnesses called, as it would appear from the summary, to establish a prior connection between Wong Ping and D5. In the result their evidence takes the matter no farther.

100. It was not put to Mr. CHAN Tsang-ki (PW11) that D5 was not questioned about the restaurant captain's statement. It was only suggested to him that D5 gave a different answer. I can thus take it, I think, that the question was asked. As I have already pointed out, less weight should be attached to a witness' recollection when it is based on a note made after the conclusion of an interview. Nevertheless, there is a great difference between "It was 2 years ago" and "I cannot remember clearly." Moreover, Mr. Chan was obviously telling the truth and relying on his actual memory when he said that he remembered this very clearly because it was D5's first mistake. I therefore find that D5 did give this answer and that he lied at Hutchison House when he said he didn't know Wong Ping.

101. I have considered whether this lie could amount to corroboration of Wong Ping's evidence, but have concluded that it cannot do so. Reluctance to admit to friendship does not necessarily make Wong Ping's allegations more or less likely to be true. I therefore direct myself as before on the danger of convicting in the absence of corroboration.

102. The fact of friendship, which I find to have existed between D5 - Wong Ping, does however make it thoroughly unlikely that Wong Ping would have falsely accused D5. He was obviously upset that he had had to do so, but his story would not otherwise have stood up. D5 admits that he succeeded D3 as barrack sergeant and that he held the post for 6-7 months. Wong Ping would have known that this could be easily checked and he had therefore no alternative but to name D5. Furthermore, the fact that D5 was the next barrack sergeant tends to support Wong Ping's evidence that he was the next payee and not some other shadowy person.

103. I am therefore satisfied that Wong Ping's evidence is true and that D5 also received corrupt money as described.

104. The only evidence against D4 is that of Wong Ping and I therefore also warn myself of the danger of convicting D4 on his uncorroborated evidence. D4 told the ICAC officers that he had never met Wong Ping and Wong Ping says that he did not know D4 before he was introduced by D5. D4 admits that he succeeded D5 as barrack sergeant in 1974. I bear in mind therefore that, whether or not D4 also took 'black' money from Wong Ping, Wong Ping would certainly have known who he was once he became barrack sergeant. He had, after all, been paying his two predecessors on a regular basis. If, on the other hand, D4 is innocent he would not necessarily have met Wong Ping.

105. It is apparent from the evidence that the illegal payments did not cease with D5's transfer. I must however consider the possibility that Wong Ping then decided not to pay money to the new barrack sergeant (D4), but to somebody else. If this were the case he has a possible motive for framing D4.

106. It is indisputable that Wong Ping had told ICAC before 1/2/77 that he had accompanied D4 to visit his seriously ill father. This is something that was put to D4 at his interview that day. Wong Ping conceded that he knew this man as a dentist and customer and that many people knew of his illness. Wong Ping did not know D4 before he became barrack sergeant, nor did he have any means of knowing that D4 was the dentist's son. If he had, by chance, come to know this, he would certainly have informed ICAC of this fact. It would have been in his own interests to bolster up his case in this way. But it does not make sense that Wong Ping should go out of his way to tall a lie about visiting D4's sick father. It was exceedingly dangerous from Wong Ping's point of view, because it could easily have been disproved. Presumably D4's father is still ill, or he would have been called as a witness, but Wong Ping was not to know that he might not recover sufficiently to testify against him.

107. But it was put to Mr. Carter (PW15), on behalf of D4, that he made no reference to his father being ill. Mr. Carter was making notes during the interview and I have no hesitation in accepting that he made an accurate note of this answer. It was indeed a perfectly natural reply to the question. One wonders why D4 should seek to challenge it. I therefore find that Wong Ping has told the truth about the visit to D4's father.

108. This is a fact that strengthens Wong Ping's evidence immeasurably. D4's visit to Wong Ping's flat, in the context of this case, emphatically rules out the possibility that he has been framed. Having so found, the fact that less weight is to be attached to the actual identification in Hutchison House, for the reasons given above, is irrelevant.

109. The fact that D4's home was so close to that of Wong Ping is also consistent with Wong Ping's evidence that payments were always made at Wong Ping's flat. This was an arrangement obviously more convenient to both men than monthly trips to Fanling.

110. Finally, I cannot overlook the fact that D4 has not seen fit to give evidence and to subject himself to cross-examination. He has been accused of receiving corrupt money from a man he supposedly never saw before his arrest. If the accusation is false, his silence is, to say the least, surprising.

111. For the foregoing reasons I find that Wong Ping's evidence regarding D4 is true.

112. It would appear that Wong Ping and D6 have known each other for a long time. The evidence that D6 told Mr. Buckle that he knew him was not challenged. Wong Ping said he had not seen him for several years. It is thus unnecessary to doubt the correctness of Wong Ping's identification at Hutchison House.

113. When Wong Ping made his first round of the stalls and divans he must have been accompanied by someone; he would not otherwise have known where to go or how much to collect. His evidence that his guide was D6 certainly rang true, but I am aware of the danger that it would be very easy for Wong Ping to name an innocent man.

114. If what D6 told the ICAC is true, however, this provides ample corroboration of Wong Ping's evidence. I have already found that the ICAC officers are witnesses of truth. I therefore reject Mr. Lane's suggestion that the latter part of the interview on 15th January did not take place. Moreover, even though the notes of this interview were not written until one hour later, the nature of the admissions by D6 was so damaging - yet brief and few in number - that any inaccuracy of transcription on Mr. Kung's part would have been minor and inconsequential. Moreover, there could have been no confusion in the mind of the ICAC officers regarding rent in respect of the stone hut and 'black' money collected from the divans.

115. It is not surprising that Mr. Buckle should have terminated 1st interview with D6 - on 14th January. It was late in the evening, D6 had confessed to collecting money for D2 and had said he was prepared to tell Mr. Buckle all about it. The latter was presumably expecting to hear the full story. If D6 had not told Mr. Buckle that he was willing to admit Mr. Buckle would not have started the interview next morning by referring him to his admission and then asking him why he had changed his mind. It is absurd to suggest that such a charade has been concocted by the ICAC. The officers have not denied that D6 told them a long story about D2's stone hut, but I attach weight to Mr. Kung's evidence that he asked him if he was collecting a different sort of rent - the colloquial term for bribe money. This would have been a very natural approach. There can have been no mistake on the part of Mr. Kung and Mr. Cheng as to D6's subsequent confession or any confusion that he was talking about the rent for the hut. It was therefore been proved that D6 confessed to his part in collecting money from the divans. There was no reason for him to lie and I attach weight to his confession accordingly. This corroborates Wong Ping's evidence that it was D6 who introduced him to the stall-holders.

116. There is also the appearance of D6's name in D3's diary (Ex. P8), which has not been explained. This tends to show that the two men knew each other, which is consistent with the Crown case. There may of course be an innocent explanation of which we are not unaware.

117. Finally, I must have regard to the fact that D6 has not given evidence in this case. Credible evidence that he collected corrupt money has been given and there is nothing to set against it. I find therefore that Wong Ping's evidence concerning D6 is true.

118. It follows from my findings that all defendants were acting in concert. They joined the conspiracy at various stages and agreed to do that which is alleged in the charges. I therefore convict them on both charges.

119. In conclusion I would thank counsel for their assistance in this lengthy case.

Certified true copy

Representation:

Mr. Edwards, C.C., for Crown.

Mr. A.W. Sedgwick instructed by Peter Mo & Co. for A1.

Mr. W. Lane instructed by S.F. Sun & Co. for A2 - A6.