A High Court judge was deliberately misled by the Government over the role of a committee set up to monitor a probe into the Allied Group property empire, it was alleged yesterday. Mr Justice Neil Kaplan, who had to consider in 1993 if the $46 million inquiry was biased, was not told police officers and prosecutors had regularly taken part in the steering committee's meetings, a court heard. The judge had also been given 'inaccurate' evidence, which covered up the fact that members of the committee had given the inspector their opinions on what should be in his report, it was alleged. Jonathan Caplan QC, defending former Allied Group chairman Lee Ming Tee, 58, in a conspiracy to defraud case, said it was a mystery why such evidence, on behalf of the Government and the inspector, had been filed. He said the deliberately filed evidence gave the impression the steering committee had only three members and its focus was administration and progress. 'As we have seen, years later, that simply was not the case,' he told the Court of First Instance. 'One is forced to ask why, if there was nothing to hide about the police and the prosecution presence, was this stance adopted?' Lee and former Allied Group finance director Ronald Tse Chu-fai, 47, face charges of conspiracy to defraud relating to share transactions in the early 1990s. No pleas have been taken. Mr Caplan has argued that the case should be halted because the Government abused powers given to the inspector and prejudiced the trial. The 1993 case was brought by Lee and the Allied Group to complain that the inspector's inquiry was biased because of the presence of the steering committee. Accountant Nicholas Allen, the inspector who conducted the inquiry, filed a sworn statement in that case saying the committee had only three members. Mr Caplan said it may be true that there were only three formal members, but others, including police officers and prosecutors, often took part in its meetings. 'They received the documentation and they were not restricted to being observers. They participated in the discussions.' Speaking of Mr Allen's statement that there had only been three members, Mr Caplan said: 'We say that cannot be an accurate description of what happened.' Gerry McMahon, with the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) at the time, had been one of the three formal members of the committee. In a sworn statement for the 1993 case, he said he had not offered the inspector opinions in relation to the conclusions to be reached in the report. But Mr Caplan said documents obtained by Lee's lawyers many years later showed that Mr McMahon had suggested the inspector make changes to his draft report which were not favourable to directors of the Allied Group. 'Why were Mr McMahon and the others allowed to file, let us call them, inaccurate affidavits? Why was the SFC's role in this inspection not fully explained?' asked Mr Caplan. He said the Government later published a large part of the inspector's report despite prosecutors' warnings it may prejudice any future trial. The defence application for the proceedings to be stayed continues before Mr Justice Pang Kin-kee today.