bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

HONG Kong's longest-held defendant awaiting trial was freed yesterday on the grounds that minimal guarantees provided under the Bill of Rights had been violated and the prosecution had been responsible for ''a catalogue of errors'' in the case.

  But Robert Lee Flickinger, 50, who had spent 21/2 years in detention, still had to endure one of the longest deliveries of a ruling.

  Judge Britton began reading his ruling on Thursday and after the courts were closed on Friday because of Severe Tropical Storm Becky, he finished yesterday morning.

  After more than seven hours of court time, Judge Britton granted a permanent stay of proceedings on the charge of conspiracy to defraud.

  Judge Britton said: ''I have found that to continue would be oppressive, not that what happened this far has been oppressive.''   He told Mr Flickinger he could go.

  Outside, Mr Flickinger said he wanted to weigh his options carefully and discuss the full implications of the ruling with his counsel.

  He said he was looking forward to returning home as soon as possible to his family in America whom he had not seen for four years and to see grandchildren he had never seen.

  Mr Flickinger said the suspense of waiting for judgment over a long weekend was ''gut-wrenching''.

  His counsel Robert Buchanan said he would be seeking advice from the Legal Aid Department regarding his application for the prosecution to pay costs.

  Although Judge Britton refused Mr Flickinger's application for costs, he allowed him the right to reapply.

  Later, acting Director of Public Prosecutions Clive Grossman QC said the Legal Department would consider the written judgment when it was available with a view to appealing against the stay.

  Mr Flickinger was arrested almost 41/2 years ago and spent 21/2 years in Lai Chi Kok. He had been on bail since January this year.

  Judge Britton found that public interest in proceeding with a case which had already cost millions was diminished over the passage of time.

  The court was told that in the event of conviction, the sentence range would have been three to four years.

  Judge Britton said Mr Flickinger had already served the equivalent of almost a four-year term because of the length of time in custody and harsh reporting conditions while in New Zealand, where he was arrested and then extradited.

  ''Even if he were to be convicted, he would not be returned to prison,'' the judge said.

   Were the trial to proceed, Mr Flickinger would probably have to ask to be taken into custody in order to survive because the Immigration Department would not grant him a work visa.

   Judge Britton referred to Mr Flickinger's ''appalling personal circumstances'' during detention at Lai Chi Kok reception centre and poverty on bail.

  ''If the trial must proceed that suffering would be prolonged for anything up to or over 12 months. All this . . . for a man who has paid the price in full for what he is accused of doing even if that conviction were a certainty which it most certainly is not.''   Mr Flickinger spent last night at a hostel.

  Although the judge found there had been undue delay and it had been prejudicial, he did not grant a stay on that ground, saying there would be need for constant vigilance on the part of the judge but it was not an insurmountable problem.

  Weighing the balance in Mr Flickinger's favour was ''a virtual promise'' by Mr Justice Duffy in the High Court earlier this year that proceedings would be stayed.

  ''The defendant must have thought the cup of freedom was in his grasp . . . it was dashed from his hands when [the case] was transferred to the District Court in February 1993.

   ''Whether the judge was right or wrong in what he said is almost beside the point. It is the effect his comments would have had on the defendant and the public perception of this case.''   In addition, Judge Britton referred to the ''unrebutted inference'' of possible bad faith on the part of former Senior Assistant Crown Prosecutor Daniel Marash and to ''the rank carelessness of the police who not only allowed an exhibit [a computer] to be tampered with, they also failed to follow up the justifiable complaint of the defendant that that had happened''.



Judge frees man held waiting since 1989