HKSAR v. CHAN KA FAI AND ANOTHER

DCCC 3/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 3 OF 2013

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

REASONS FOR VERDICT

------------------------------------

The Charge

1.  The 1^st defendant (D1) was charged with one count of “claiming to be an office-bearer of a triad society” (Charge 1), contrary to section 19(2) of the Societies Ordinance, Cap 151 (“the ordinance”) and the 2^nd defendant (D2) was charged with another count of “claiming to be a member of a triad society” (Charge 2), contrary to section 20(2) of the ordinance.  D1 pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 whilst D2 pleaded guilty to Charge 2 on arraignment.  D2 was duly convicted of his charge after he had admitted the summary of facts.  At the request of D2’s counsel, mitigation for his client is reserved and D2 was remanded in custody pending the conclusion of D1’s trial.

2.  The subject matter of the allegation against D1 was that on 18 April 2012, outside Why Club at No 8 Minden Avenue, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, he claimed himself to be a staff member of the Sun Yee On Triad Society.

Overview

3.  In this trial, the prosecution relied solely on the evidence of three police witnesses.  The principal witness is PC 8367 LAM Hin Ho (PW1), a young police officer of the Organized Crime & Triad Bureau (OCTB) who, at the material times, was an undercover agent.  His task was to infiltrate to the triad society to gather information and evidence of criminal activities.  On the day in question, PW1 went to Why Club at Minden Avenue with other people for fun as part of his duty of the undercover operation.  Later at around 3:07 am at the entrance on the ground floor outside the club which was located in the basement, PW1 witnessed two groups of people, each comprised of 10 or more persons, swearing at and confronting each other.  He knew some people of one group but not the people of the other group.  PW1 was able to hear some of the exchanges between the people of the two groups and in particular, he heard D1, whom he had seen before, introducing himself as Ka Fai to a person of the opposing group and further claimed that he was a staff member of Sun Yee On who overlooked the establishment.  D1 was subsequently arrested by DPC 33774 KO Chi Chung (PW2) on 12 August 2012 for the offences of “unlawful assembly” and “managing a triad society”.  Under caution, D1 remain silent.  The final police witness is Sgt 49287 (PW3) who was called to testify as a Triad Expert.

4.  There was no half-way submission made by the defence and I ruled that there was a case to answer in respect of the charge against D1.

5.  D1 elected to testify.  He totally denied the allegation.  In short, he told the court that he was the boss and person-in-charge of “Why Club” and at the material times, he just told the two groups of people who earlier had heated arguments inside the club not to cause any more trouble and to disperse at the entrance of the club.  At no time did he ever claim himself to be an “office-bearer” and in particular a “staff member” of the Sun Yee On triad society.  He did not call any witness to testify on his behalf.  

General Directions

6.  In arriving at my verdict, I direct myself that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D1 is guilty of the charge he faces and he does not have to prove anything.  I further direct myself that I have to be sure of D1’s guilt on the charge before I can convict him of it.  That is the same thing as being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.  Although D1 has revealed his past criminal records when he testified, I remind myself that I should not be affected by those records at all when I come to assess his evidence.  Those are after all relatively minor and not similar records which happened more than 12 years ago.

The Issues

7.  There are before me two issues in this trial, viz, whether  at all material times D1:-

(i) did claim himself to be an “office-bearer” of the Sun Yee On triad society and in particular a “staff member”? (“the 1^st issue”) and

(ii) whether “staff member” is a rank or office within the hierarchy of the Sun Yee On triad society? (the 2^nd issue)

8.  The identity of D1 is not an issue in this case.  Mr Kevin Egan, counsel for D1, conceded that PW1had already seen D1 before the date of offence and as such D1 was properly recognized and correctly identified by PW1.

The 1^st issue

9.  The first issue revolves around the credibility of the undercover police officer, PW1. A more in-depth analysis of his credibility requires a closer examination of PW1’s testimony as well as D1’s testimony.

The summary of PW1’s evidence

10.  PW1 went to Why Club for entertainment on 18 April 2012.  At 3:17 am, outside the entrance of Why Club, he saw 2 groups of people swearing at each other.  He knew three of them in one group (“group A”) and they were Ka Fai (D1) and 2 other men known as Ma Jai and Dino.  PW1 did not know the people in the other group (“group B”).  Later another male of group A called Chong Jai appeared and told PW1 that he was assaulted by the other group inside Why Club.  The parties therefore had a discussion there.

11.  A man in group B (code name D168) made a call.  He said,

“Ah Tai, I am now outside the entrance to Why Club and I am having a dispute with the Lo Sun bouncers. I am blowing the whistle, please come as soon as possible to assist.”

12.  D1 heard what this male D168 had said over the phone.  He approached D168 and said very loudly to him that as they had both declared they were all of Sun Yee On, why he still found it necessary to summon for assistance?  D168 then replied that he followed one Ah Sai of Sun Yee On and that he just asked his “Ah Tai” (big brother) to come for negotiation.

13.  Dino then asked D168 to disperse his people first if they were really sincere to talk because they were all from Sun Yee On.  The people did not disperse.  The two groups still blamed each other for starting the fight first. 

14.  Subsequently, an unknown man (code name D170) arrived.  He brought along 4 males and walked up to the front of D1, Dino and Ma Jai.  D170 then said to D1 that he was Ah Ho, the follower of Tai Lung of Sun Yee On. Upon hearing this, D1 said to Ah Ho,

“I am Ka Fai, staff of Sun Yee On. You group of followers have made my subordinates suffer injuries by assaulting them. I look after the establishment. Don’t come to this place again for the fuck of it!”

15.  Ah Ho said to D1 that that meant it was unnecessary to discuss.  Ah Ho immediately told his group to leave.  Ma Jai then told Chung Jai to go to the hospital to seek medical treatment first with “two brothers” and not to worry and the big brother will settle the matter for him.  Then D1 said to his group of males, “No problem!  There are police.  Disperse the group of people first and then go down to have drinks.”  Afterwards, PW1 went back to the club and he stayed there until 5:30 am. 

The summary of D1’s evidence

16.  D1 is a 38 years old businessman whose principal business is operating restaurant and bar.  He operated a total of three business entities and Why Club is one of them.  He produced a copy of Annual Return of the holding company of the club to the court indicating that he was at the material times the majority shareholder and the principal director of the holding company.  The club has a liquor license which is renewable yearly and the security of the club is always a primary concern as the police can make representation to the Liquor License Board and object to the renewal of its liquor license.  According to D1, he employed around 12 to 13 security guards or “bouncers” in order to ensure the order of the club as well as to control the number of entrants to the club.  The bouncers are all foreign nationals from Africa, India and Pakistan.  D1 categorically denied that he was a member of Sun Yee On triad society and he maintained that he has never claimed himself to be an office-bearer or staff member of Sun Yee On.  He said prior to this incident, he has never been arrested for, charged with or convicted of any triad offence before.  He disclosed that he had previous criminal records but those were only “gambling in a gambling establishment” in 1998 and “criminal damage” in 1999 for which he were only fined.  His last conviction was in 2001 when he was convicted of two traffic offences of “dangerous driving” and “driving under the influence of alcohol”.  He was sentenced to perform a total of 80 hours of Community Service Order for the two driving offences.

17.  As to the incident described by PW1, D1 said it was sometimes after 3am and he was then working inside the club.  He then saw two groups of people disputing at the dance floor.  One of the groups consisted of regular customers but he had not seen the people of another group before.  The bouncers then approached the two groups and tried to mediate.  They were then driven out to the entrance of the club by the bouncers.  D1 then walked up and tried to find out what happened.  He saw one of his bouncers suffering from bleeding in the corner of his mouth and the two groups of people were still arguing at the entrance.  He instructed his colleagues to make a report to the police.  D1 said he then told the two groups the following words,

“I am Ka Fai and I am the boss here. My colleagues were assaulted by you and you are still having a dispute here. You guys are so troublesome so don’t come to have fun again.”

18.  One of the men in a group then said,

“In this case there is nothing to talk about.”

19.  D1 then replied,

“I am the boss here. I call the shots here. I have made a report to police. You better go away as soon as possible.”

20.  Then he said the groups of male left after hearing that.  Later the police arrived and he told the police that there was no problem and he was asked to ‘clean up’ the scene by the police.  He then went back to the club.

21.  In short, D1 denied ever saying any of those words as described by PW1 during the incident.  Under cross examination, D1 further revealed that he had paid ‘protection money’ to the triad society through D2 but he added that it was an open secret and even the police also knew about it but he reiterated that it was not against the law to pay protection fees to triads.  He said D2 was hanging around in his club but he was not his direct employee but only an agent of the triads.  D1 said he was the boss and he just gave money to D2 to handle the matter for him and he did not need to deal with the triads directly.

22.  In relation to the first issue, Ms Emily Cheung, counsel-on-fiat for the prosecution submitted that it is not reasonable for a boss like D1 to risk his life to speak to the group of trouble makers. Ms Cheung submitted that the whole purpose of D1 to be present at the scene was to assert his authority and power in his sphere of influence and to achieve this end, D1 declared that he was a staff of Sun Yee On triad society in front of other triad members.

23.  Mr Egan, counsel for D1 submitted on the other hand that D1 gave his evidence in a far more convincing manner than PW1.  He pointed out the fact that the allegation about the events of the early morning of 18 April 2012 only arose in PW1’s 3^rd witness statement.  He submitted that the matter that D1 is charged with should only come to light until D1’s 3^rd (and last) witness statement defies any “inherent probabilities/inherent improbabilities” .

24.  Mr Egan submitted that this surely gives rise to at the very least a reasonable doubt further bearing in mind that–

(1) PW1 admitted that he had drunk 2 glasses of whisky and green tea before the relevant events;

(2) there were 20 angry young men confronting each other at the relevant time so that events were bound to have been chaotic and confusing;

(3) that the arresting officer, PW2, who admitted having read his witness statement before entering court to testify, had falsely told the court that he had arrested the accused for “claiming to be an office-bearer of a triad society” on 12 August, 2012 when he had in fact arrested D1for 2 counts of “unlawful assembly” and 1 count of “managing a triad society”.

25.  All in all, with “peculiarities” surrounding the evidence of all 3 of the police officers whose evidence constitutes the whole of the prosecution case, Mr Egan submitted that one is left with the clear impression that in laying the charge that they eventually did that the police/prosecution has “worked backwards” (or “assembled the evidence backwards”).

26.  Finally, Mr Egan submitted the fact that other persons present outside Why Club in the early morning of 18 April 2012 may have used triad language cannot possibly amount to evidence against D1 on the present charge.  D1, he said, is simply not responsible for the behavior of others.

Analysis

27.  I have the advantage of seeing and hearing both PW1 and D1 giving evidence in the court and their allegations being tested by the vigorous cross-examinations of both counsels.

28.  In the end, I find PW1 an honest and reliable witness on whose evidence I can rely.  I accept his evidence not because he was an undercover police officer.  His testimony on the whole is simple, logical  and straight forward and at the same time he had demonstrated his ability to recall the events by giving detailed exchange of conversations between different characters of the two opposing groups.  The utterances made by each character including D1 during the confrontation in response to one another was so natural and spontaneous that it could not have been invented or fabricated by PW1.  The totality of the content of the conversation clearly indicated that at the material times, inside Why Club, there was an internal conflict following a heated dispute between two groups of people who turned out to be all of Sun Yee On triad members following different big brothers.  The group which PW1 knew including D1 was apparently agitated and annoyed by the other group who still called his big brother Ah Ho and summoned for assistance after being told that they were apparently all of the same triad society.

29.  In my mind, if D1 was indeed an office-bearer of Sun Yee On, given his status also as the boss and person in charge of the club, under the circumstances, he has every motive and intention to claim to Ah Ho of the other group that he was a staff member of the same triad society in order to assert his authority and power in his sphere of influence with a view to settle the dispute and disperse the trouble makers outside the entrance of his club.  The events leading to D1’s claiming himself to be a staff member of Sun Yee On were therefore so natural and logical.

30.  Mr Egan’s complaint that PW1 only recalled this event on 18 April 2012 on his third and last statement was totally without merit.  PW1 had already explained and I accepted that his first statement was given after the identity parade of D1 and he just gave a general description there that D1 was in connection of criminal activities during the operation after he was identified.  PW1’s second witness statement was in relation to some uncharged acts of other people which took place on 17 August 2011 during the operation.  PW1 was asked by Mr Egan why then he did not make a continuous statement and recorded the present event also in the second statement.  PW1 replied and, properly in my mind, that as it involved separate events and different characters on separate occasions, he just thought that it would be better for him to record the present incident in a different and hence the third statement.

31.  I have also no doubt in my mind that PW1’s ability to observe and recall the event and in particular the words uttered by different persons in the two groups were not at all affected by his consumption of only some alcohols during the time inside the club.  PW1 was there with the distinct purpose of gathering information and evidence of triad activities and he was not there to indulge himself for fun.  I am satisfied that he was sober at all material times and he was doing his job and the detailed content of the conversation he was able to recall in this trial is just a testimony of his clear mind and normal physical condition at that time.  The situation at scene may at times be chaotic and confused as described by the defence but I am satisfied that PW1 was still able to perform his task to collect evidence under difficult situation.

32.  On the other hand, in my judgment, D1’s evidence is fraught with inherent improbability.  What D1 has described what he has said and done in the incident was more akin to the job of a bouncer than a boss or person in charge of a proper business entity.  He said he has already employed 12 to 13 bouncers in his club but when the situation was out of control at the entrance outside his club, the bouncers did not show force but instead D1 alone spearheaded the conversation or confrontation with two groups of “troublemakers”.  On the one hand, D1 in his evidence tried to maintain a distance between he and D2 by denying any direct relationship between themselves.  He said he would not deal with the triads directly as he was the boss and he just left everything to D2.  On the other hand, there is no good reason why then he was in the forefront during the confrontation between the two groups and what is more, he even made no attempt whatsoever to conceal his identity to protect his anonymity.  To me, it is so unthinkable for a boss and a decent businessman to have to confront a group of 10 odd males himself whose background he did not exactly know especially when someone like D2 was also around and he had already a dozen or more of bouncers to do the job to disperse the groups for him.  I totally agree with Ms Cheung when she submitted that if D1 had really already asked his colleague to report the matter to the police and he had also agreed under cross-examination that there was no imminent danger or threat to his patrons in the club, there was no good reason why D1 still had to take the risk to go up to the ground floor and confronted the two groups on his own.

33.  I accept that in reality, it is perhaps not unusual for an operator of a bar in Tsim Sha Tsui to pay protection money to the triads and of course just because a bar or a club is forced to deal with triads this way does not turn the boss or operator himself into a triad member or even an office-bearer of a triad society automatically.  What is so unthinkable was for a boss such as D1 who had already paid protection money to avoid trouble in his club would still take it upon himself to disperse the troublemakers of possible triad backgrounds without the assistance or intervention of any triad related person such as D2 who was actually there at the time.  I find that there is simply not a ring of truth in D1’s testimony and in my mind, it was clear that he only tailored his evidence as he went along in the face of the allegations by PW1.  I therefore rejected D1’s evidence entirely.

34.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that during the incident, D1 did claim himself to be a staff of Sun Yee On in the manner as described by PW1.

The 2^nd Issue

35.  Having resolved the first issue, the second issue of this case which is fallen to be decided is what weight I can attach to the opinion of PW3, the triad expert that the term “staff member” is with the same meaning of “office-bearer” and is within the internal structure or hierarchy of the Sun Yee On triad society.

The summary of the opinion of the Triad Expert (PW3)

36.  PW3’s expertise and qualifications was not disputed by the defence.  His first witness statement on this case dated 26 September 2012 was admitted into evidence under s 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) as Exh P1 and its English translation P1A.  Under cross-examination, PW3 referred the court to the authoritative publication Hong Kong Triad Society by WP Morgan in 1960 and pointed out that the internal structure of the Sun Yee On triad society can be divided into different rankings such as Hung Kwan official(426), Pat Tsz Sin official (415) and Cho Hai official (432) as opposed to just ordinary member (49).  According to PW3, the rank “official” is also commonly known as “staff member” in the common usage and they all mean “office-bearer” of the triad society.  As invited by Mr Egan and in support of his contention, PW3 pointed out that the Chinese term of “staff member” (“職員”) was actually adopted as the Chinese translation for the term “official” as appeared in the Chinese edition of Hong Kong Triad Society.

37.  PW3 also explained to the court what the words said in the incident mean.  He said “Ah Tai” or “Tai Lo” means “big brother” and refers to a triad protector.  In particular he explained that both “Sun Yee On” and “Lo Sun” refer to an active triad society in Hong Kong and that “staff” refer to a rank higher than a mere member with examples of “staff” given.  He said that a staff member is not just a mere ordinary member.  A “staff member” is actually an “office-bearer” of the triad society.  In order to become a “staff member”, a mere member needs to have some contributions or achievements and the recommendation of his direct protector and a protector of another member and also needs to go through the promotion assessment by higher ranking members of the triad society.  PW3 then explained to the court what the meanings of the words uttered by different characters during the confrontation between the two groups were during the incident.  In particular, he said D1 told the other group that he was a staff member of the triad society without directly specific which post he was holding.  Earlier D1 was apparently queried why the person in other group still called and gathered the triad members of the same triad society to assist when they have revealed that they were of the same triad society.

38.  According to section (2) the Interpretation section of the ordinance, “office-bearer” of a society means “any person who is the president, or vice president, or secretary or treasurer of such society or any branch thereof, or who is a member of the committee or governing body of such society or any branch thereof, or who holds in such society or any branch thereof any office or position analogous to any of those mentioned above or in the case of a triad society, any person holding any rank or office in the triad society other than that of any ordinary member.”(emphasis added)

39.  Based on the above, Ms Cheung submitted that clearly, according to the triad expert and the authority of Morgan’s book, a staff holds a rank or office in the triad society other than that of any ordinary member.  Therefore, by virtue of the definition of s 2, a staff of Sun Yee On triad society is an office-bearer of Sun Yee On triad society.

40.  The defence never dispute that the society in question, the “Sun Yee On” is a triad society.  Contrary to the triad expert, Mr Egan contended that there is no such rank or office as “staff member” within the hierarchy of triad societies.

41.  In relation to this second issue, Mr Egan submitted that “office-bearer” is defined in s 2 of the ordinance by 2 characters (“幹事”) (romanized as “Gon si”).  He said the prosecution sought to persuade the court that the 2 characters for the common Chinese term “staff” (“職員”) (romanized as “Jik yuen”), also represent an office-bearer rank in triad hierarchy.  Mr Egan said the proposition is without any credible evidential foundation.  He pointed out that:-

· PW3 accepted that none of the 3 authoritative texts on triad societies set out in his witness statement of 26.9.2012 (witness statement No 1) (Exh P1) support this proposition.

· PW3 however sought to rely on a Chinese language version of “Morgan” at page 100 where 3 Chinese Language Officers of the OCTB of the police have translated the term “official” into (“職員”) (romanized as “Jik yuen”), viz “staff member”.

· Apart from this, PW3 also sought to rely on journalistic-type observations by “casual authors” of some Chinese book texts on triad societies in Hong Kong where the Chinese term (“職員”) (romanized as “Jik yuen”) or “staff” is also used by the authors (Exh P2, 3, 4 refer).

42.  Finally, he seeks to rely upon the contents of certain debriefings that he and a colleague carried out where persons claiming to be triad members during interviews were said to have also used the term “staff member”, Chinese term (“職員”) (romanized as “Jik yuen”) (Exh P5 refers).

43.  Mr. Egan submitted that none of these persons interviewed were ever charged with, taken to court for nor admitted guilt of triad related activities.  They may have been telling the truth but they may have been telling the police officers what they wanted to hear – they may have been lying.  The court also did not know the format of the questions asked of these people and whether the questions asked by PW3 and his colleague were in anyway leading. What these individuals told he and his colleague then accordingly is also classic hearsay.

44.  Mr Egan was also highly critical of the triad expert’s testimony.  He said when PW3 was asked to say what D1 allegedly meant when he used the term “Sun Yee On Jik yuen”, PW3 opined that “Ka fai told people he was a member of a triad society”(not an office-bearer) and further that “Ka fai said he was a “staff member” of a triad society, but not saying he was a “Red Pole” a “White Paper Fan” or a “Straw Sandal” – just hinting at this.”

45.  Finally Mr Egan said that in the absence of clear evidence that the term “staff” has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be the same as that contained in the ordinance viz “office-bearer”, the court should decline to so find in this particular case.

Analysis

46.  In my judgment, while it is true that the term “staff member” is a common term in Chinese language with ordinary usage, it has certainly a different and special meaning when it was used in the context of the internal structure and hierarchy of a triad society.  It is certainly one thing when a person claimed himself or herself to be a “staff” or “staff member” of say Marks & Spencer and it is totally another thing when one called himself or herself as a “staff” or “staff member” of Sun Yee On, a triad society active in Hong Kong.  One cannot therefore just focus on the term “staff” or “staff member” in isolation.  Any meaningful interpretation of the term must therefore be done in context.  Therefore, in this case, the term must be analysed in the context of the usage or language of a triad society.  According to PW3, a “staff” or “staff member” is of course also a member of the triad society and as such, I see nothing wrong when PW3 described in his evidence in chief that D1 was a member of the triad society.  When he went further in his analysis, he was clearly telling the court that according to his general knowledge in local triad societies in respect of their organizations, structures and activities, although D1 was a member, he was not an ordinary or mere member but a staff member of a triad society.

47.  The main thrust of the objection by the defence is the fact that the Chinese term (“職員”) (romanized as “Jik Yuen”) or “staff member” in English does not appear in s 2 of the ordinance.  The official Chinese term in the ordinance was (“幹事”) (romanized as “Gong Si”) or “office-bearer” in the English version.

48.  However, in my judgment, Mr Egan’s argument centered too much upon the semantics of the meaning of the terms but in so doing, he simply lose sight of the matter and could not see the forest for the trees.  I only need to refer myself to the basic and look at the definition of the word “office-bearer” in the ordinance and in this particular case, in the context of a triad society.  As properly emphasized by Ms Cheung in her submission, the term office-bearer simply means “… any person holding any rank or office in the triad society other than that of any ordinary member.”

49.  By the method of elimination, according to this definition provided in the ordinance, any person who is not an ordinary member must be an office-bearer within the meaning of the ordinance.  However, “office-bearer” is not a specific rank such as “Red Pole” (“Hung Kwan official”) or “Whit Paper Fan” (“Pat Tsz Sin” official).  In other words, it is only a generic term referring to all different ranks over and above the ordinary member.  Given its general nature, it is not unusual therefore that an “office-bearer” could also loosely and conveniently be called as a “staff member” of a triad society given the proximity of the meanings between these two Chinese terms.

50.  PW3 gave his expert opinion on the matter based on his experience and knowledge of the triad society.  According to his statement Exh P1A which was admitted under s 65B of Cap 221, he was responsible for gathering and analyzing information on trends and activities of various triad groups.  He obtained from work the knowledge of the practices, modus operandi and commonly used jargons of the triad society.  Besides, he has to interview arrested persons and other related persons with triad background of various triad groups and ranks and gather news of triad members and their activities.  Apart from Morgan’s Hong Kong Triad Society and the two other more famous or classic publications The Hung League and The Triad Society, he also need to study and refer himself to other triad related publications from time to time including some more casual or simple publications to enrich his knowledge about triad societies.  I judge therefore that PW3’s opinion was based on his knowledge derived from his years’ of study and his information gathered from triad-related work duties and I fail to see how he could be criticized for obtaining his knowledge in this way. I also do not see how the information about his interviewees that they were “staff members” was hearsay and inadmissible.  Here I am not concerned with the fact that the person interviewed by PW3 was in fact an office-bearer or not.  Those people may be telling the truth or not as rightly submitted by the defence but I am more concerned with the fact that those persons interviewed by PW3 would saw fit to describe their status in the triad society to the police using the term “staff member”.  In other words, it is the ‘form’ but not the ‘substance’ of the information obtained from these persons which were admitted for consideration[1]. It would be a strange coincidence to say the least that all these interviewees would invariably described their ranks in the triad societies using the same term “staff member” if it is not also a term commonly adopted by ‘office-bearers’ of  the triad societies.

51.  I therefore rejected the defence submission and hold that the term “staff member” was a general term referring to all those different ranks and offices held by a person over and above the rank of ordinary member of a triad society. 

52.  Even if I was wrong in relying on the ‘form’, viz, the common usage of the same term by the interviewees of PW3 in my analysis, I can still always refer back to the wording of the ordinance and relying on the ‘substance’ of the definition. 

53.  After considering all the evidence in the round and reviewing the exchange of conversations among the different characters of the two opposing groups of Sun Yee On triad members in particular, it is not difficult to conclude from what D1 said and what he did at the time that he was not just an ordinary member of Sun Yee On.  An ordinary member for example would not have accused the person in the other group that his followers had injured the subordinates; an ordinary member would also not be powerful enough to say that he overlooked the establishment and told the other triads not to come to the place again.  Based on the above, given his status and position in Why Club and the fact that he was so unusually pro-active in the whole matter of dispersing the groups of potential triad related members outside the club, the only reasonable and irresistible inference under the circumstances is that D1 is not merely a businessman and he is also not a mere ordinary member of the triad society but, by definition of the law, an “office-bearer” and certainly a high ranking “office-bearer” of the Sun Yee On triad society and he also did claim himself to be a staff member of Sun Yee On accordingly as described by PW1.

Conclusion

54.  Based on the above analysis, D1 is convicted of charge 1.