case, dated 7 October 2014, Mr Cheung attached the letter of 30 September 2014 together with his earlier requests of 1 March 2014, asking them to “…attend to outstanding matters”, and gave the following directions:
“As I have stressed in (sic) earlier occasions (either to you or to your previous OC case) we have to ensure proper disclosure, particularly in this case where a number of other APs have already been dealt with by the courts in other criminal proceedings.”
44. In the result, the upshot of Mr Cheung’s evidence was summarised in his statement “…I did not see, nor was I informed 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.
45. Ms Go said that she and Mr Simon Tam had been assigned as counsel to prosecute the case on 25 September 2014. She said that she could not recall when she received the case papers and the Bundle of unused material. She produced a receipt dated 24 October 2014 by which the applicant’s then solicitors acknowledged receipt, inter-alia, of a Bundle of unused material comprising 19 volumes. Although she said that she could not recall the exact conversation she had with police officers about the ambit of the Bundle of unused material, to the best of her recollection she was told that it contained all of the unused material possessed by the police at the time of service on the defence. She “vetted” the list of contents of the Bundle of unused material, but she could not remember if she had “vetted” the Bundle itself.
