律政風暴之三

為甚麼Reid會走上貪汚之路？

Reid自己的講法(向廉署作出的供辭)：

1. 他哥哥Michael Reid，同時是律政署的檢察官，職位比Warwick Reid低，Michael Reid經濟拮据及破產，1986年離職。南華早報曾報導過Warwick Reid為了争取 Michael Reid升級，與同事在高級餐争論，繼而大打出手，Warwick Reid的假髮也打甩了。Reid平時有打拳，髮綫向後，日常都戴假髮，當然不是上庭戴那種。打架沒有鬧上警署，就算鬧上警署，一定可以擺平，不要忘記那是甚麼年代，兩個都是律政署首長級的外藉高官，沒有擺不平的事。我對上一篇提及走咭數兼走佬的McInnes，他老婆報警投訴被打，一樣擺平了。Michael Reid經濟拮据，跟Warwick Reid 貪污，究竟有何關係，這解釋相當牽強。後來更傳聞是Michael Reid向廉署舉報Warwick Reid 的。

2. Reid 第一次受賄涉及香港上市公司莊士集團，當時Reid 掌管商業罪案科(Commercial Crime Unit)，該科也負責向亷署提供法律意見。Reid 聲稱1986年1月律政司唐明治(Michael Thomas)問他知不知警方調查莊士集團事，因為張奧偉資深大律師想安排控方和莊士集團的代表律師開會。(代表莊士集團的律師是Oscar Lai，大律師是Eddie Soh，這兩人也因賄賂Reid 而入獄)。Soh和Reid 以前多次交手，在莊士集團這件案，Soh 暗示有人願意用錢去擺平，換取莊士集團的人不會遭檢控，附加條件是要律政司的保證書。另外，Soh 告知Reid，因為鄧蓮如想幫助莊家，所以聯係唐明治。Reid 覺得唐明治也不熱衷檢控莊家。這些燙手資料來自香港大學學術庫(The HKU Scholars Hub)的The Kevin Egan's case為名的碩士論文，我不是原作者，下面貼了原文*。

Reid 看過檔案，寫給唐明治，表明不應檢控莊家，得到唐明治認同(endorsed)，他向Soh展示唐明治的評語，之後自然可領取獎金。Reid 把唐明治弄諸掌上，抑或揣摩上意，相得益彰，各得其所？我不敢妄下定論。碩士論文的作者自己作出一些看法，第45頁的一段這樣寫：

     The first corrupt transaction involved a group of public companies controlled by the Chuang family. Reid explained his involvement and intriguingly and perhaps deliberately introduces some doubt about the integrity of some very senior persons in Hong Kong. Reid's machinations are important to scrutinize for they illuminate the complexity of his actions and his ability to point a finger.

作者是精神科醫生寫犯罪學論文，他不是法律界對罪犯的心態及手法(modus operandi)有真正體會的人，他對Reid 字裏行間的貶斥，我不覺得公允。毫無疑問，Reid 十惡不赦，他自己直認不諱，但拖其他人落水，對他自己也毫無利益，我不覺得他需要誣捏別人。當時不檢控莊士集團的人的決定，架空了Reid 的頂頭上司------刑事檢控專員Joe Duffy，使他極不高興，Reid 也要向警方及證監處解釋。從此，Reid 就踏上不歸路。

讀者請勿胡亂評論，有些麻煩，大家都惹不起。為你們感覺舒服一點，不如這樣講，假如你是律政司長，你的老友有件案找你幫忙，請問你怎樣處理呢？如果標少是公正兼要避嫌的律政司長，我會叫他直接寫信給刑事檢控專員考慮，自己不會向刑事檢控專員打招呼，也全不過問，不會讓下屬揣摩上意。如果我要影響下屬的決定，伸出無形之手，我會講：「我果日同阿邊個食飯，佢話有單嘢想我睇下可唔可以畀個機會個被告，我話我哋咁老友，我畀意見唔係幾合適，叫佢寫畀你，唔知佢有無寫嚟？」又譬如法官審案，好朋友是被告，當然不能自己審，而要轉給其他法官審。他應怎樣告訴同袍呢？當然不能夠講 I cannot try the case because the defendant is my good friend，除非你想同袍判被告無罪。他應該講For some reason I cannot disclose, I cannot try this case。翻手為雲，覆手為雨，不讓下屬揣摩上意，就不要給他揣摩的機會。



*        Reid alleged he first became aware of a police investigation into the Chuangs in January 1986 when the then Attorney General, Michael Thomas asked him if he knew of the case. Mr Thomas had been contacted by Oswald Cheung QC who wanted a meeting between the Crown and the Chuang faimily's solicitors (Oscar, Lai and Ho). Reid supervised the Crown Counsel responsible for the case. Consequently Soh led Reid to believe that a member of the family, Mr Alan Chuang "would pay to avoid prosecution." Prolonged and involved negotiation ensued with Soh/Lai acting as middlemen. It was agreed money was to be paid only if no Chuang family member was prosecuted. In advance, Alan Chuang wanted an assurance and Reid said all that could be expected was a letter from the Attorney General. In his statement Reid alleged that his reading of the police file on the case led him to believe "the Attorney General Michael Thomas had an interest in the case. He then related that "Eddie told me that Michael Thomas had been approached by Lydia Dunn, who was a friend of Alan Chuang's father, and that Lydia Dunn was concerned to help the Chuang family.' Reid formed the "impression that the Attorney General was not keen to see these people prosecuted."
(p.46 The Kevin Egan's case)