Page:HKSAR v. Wun Shu Fai (CACC 48-2015).djvu/24

Rh

Jacky Ma’s affirmation

51. Of the failure to disclose Jacky Ma’s affirmation, Ms Lai acknowledged in her written submissions that counsel at the Department of Justice should have reviewed the relevant appeal files to look for disclosable material. Fault lay in “…an insufficient vigilance to the necessity of taking a proactive approach to ensure full and proper disclosure.” On the other hand, there was no evidence of bad faith.

Billy Kay’s letters

52. In her written submissions, Ms Lai acknowledged that the opinion of Chief Inspector Chan and Senior Inspector Lee that the material contained in the Police Investigation Reports and the police notebooks were not disclosable was erroneous. Nevertheless, she submitted that there was no evidence of bad faith. Also, she acknowledged that counsel at the Department of Justice “…could have been more vigilant and adopted a more proactive approach in scrutinising the material submitted by the police.”

Visits by police officers to Jacky Ma and Billy Kay

53: Ms Lai informed the Court that the respondent took “full responsibility” for the failure to disclose the fact of visits to Jacky Ma and Billy Kay whilst they were in custody and for the failure to disclose the matters that passed between them and the police.