Page:HKSAR v. Wun Shu Fai (CACC 48-2015).djvu/22

Rh 46. For her part, Ms Go said that she did not see/know of nor was she “…apprised of the existence of” any of the letters written by Billy Kay to various police officers, the affirmation of Jacky Ma, the Police Investigation Reports and the police notebook entries in respect of visits to Billy Kay and Jacky Ma by police officers. Further, she said that to the best of her knowledge, Mr Simon Tam did not mention that he knew about or had been apprised of the existence of any of that material.

47. In her second affirmation, Ms Go said that she could not recall whether any Police Investigation Reports were included in the police files provided for her use for the purpose of trial. Of Jacky Ma’s affirmation in support of his application for leave to appeal against sentence, she said that whilst she was aware of the fact of his appeal she had not reviewed the appeal file nor had she been provided with a copy of the affirmation. It did not occur to her that it might contain material relevant to the applicant’s trial. Further, she was not aware of the prison visits to the two accomplices conducted by police officers. Finally, she said that Mr Simon Tam had been on sick leave and vacation leave since 6 February 2015.

The respondent's submissions

48. At the hearing on 26 January 2017, Mr Ned Lai informed the Court that the respondent accepted responsibility for non-disclosure of the material about which complaint was made, but he invited the Court to reject the arguments advanced in ground 1. He submitted that the material “would not have shown or help to show that there was any significant discrepancy or inconsistency in the relevant testimony of” Jacky Ma or