Page:HKSAR v. Wun Shu Fai (CACC 48-2015).djvu/33

Rh former were never informed prior to or during the trial of the applicant that Billy Kay had written 12 letters to police officers involved in the prosecution of the applicant or that police officers had made 20 visits to Billy Kay and had visited Jacky Ma, whilst they were detained in the custody of the Correctional Services Department.

72. Given that Jacky Ma and Billy Kay were important accomplice witnesses in the prosecution case it was a serious error of judgment by the police officers involved not to have disclosed that material to counsel advising on the preparation of the case and to counsel assigned to prosecute the case. On the other hand, clearly this was not a decision to be left to a police officer, let alone to police officers in the investigation team.

73. Given the fact that the two accomplices had made non-prejudicial witness statements, Billy Kay one and Jacky Ma two such statements, it was very likely that there had been contact between the police officers and the witnesses before and between the non-prejudicial witness statements. With respect, there was a failure by prosecution counsel to require specifically that the officer-in-charge of the case and the investigating officers obtain and produce to prosecution counsel all information and records of contact by police officers in the investigation team with Jacky Ma and Billy Kay after the completion of their video record of interview and prior to the commencement of trial. Such a requirement of the police officers and its response should have been made in writing and those records retained. Those matters are elementary. The absence of written records made by prosecution counsel