I am the second youngest sister of Ms. Li Yuen-yee, the Deceased (“the Deceased”). I now make this statement in support of my complaint against the undercover agent, PC 54063 Yau Shu-ming (“agent Yau”), and the District SD Squad II (Wanchai District) (“the said squad”) in relation to the undercover operation carried out by the police on 5^th October 2006 (“the Undercover Operation”).

After reading the police statements of agent Yau and the police officers involved in the Undercover Operation and after hearing them give evidence during the Coroner’s Inquest of the Deceased held from 8^th May 2006 to 11^th May 2006, I have identified various contradictions between their police statements and their evidence in court.

The Deceased not only told some members of her family, but also wrote in (her farewell letters to her family and her diary that she had provided agent Yau with oral sex service, and that she was beaten and framed. The Deceased also said that after she had provided oral sex for agent Yau, she went into the bathroom and spat agent Yau’s semen into a condom and but it in her handbag. Although agent Yau denied this sequence of events had ever taken place, his inconsistent evidence during the Inquest, his initial concealment of the use of a condom during the Operation and delay in making a report about the undercover operation, are all evidence which supports the case that the police officers have deliabealtely hidden the truth from the public in this case. The unanswered question is why would he do that.

In agent Yau’s second statement, he said that after the Deceased was arrested, he forgot to tell the sergeant about the use of a condom. However, a condom is usually an important piece of evidence. How could he have “forgotten” about the condom within such a short period of time? (In fact, the police did lose an important piece of evidence due to agent Yau's "selective loss of memory.) Five days later, on 10^th October 2005, agent Yau finally remembered that he had used a condom and on that day he orally told the sergeant about the condom. However, on 12^th October 2005, there was still no mention or record about the condom in agent Yau's written report to his superior. This gives rise to the reasonable suspicion as to whether agent Yau had intentionally hidden the fact from the investigating police officers that a condom was used and he ejaculated in it to prevent himself from being suspected of breaching the code of practice of receiving oral sex.

When the sergeant was investigated by the Crime Investigation Unit, he did not mention the fact that agent Yau had told him about the condom. It was not until the Crime Investigation Unit knew about the existence of the condom and launched another investigation, that the sergeant stated that agent Yau had orally told him that he did use a condom. The above is very suspicions and totally unexplained.

When the policemen searched the Deceased’s handbag right after the Operation, agent Yau said that he was standing behind his colleagues. However, he insisted he only saw HK$3,000 in cash in the handbag and there was no condom in the handbag. There was evidence from others that there were unused condoms and other items in the handbag. Again agent Yau was intentionally hiding the fact that the condom existed because he wanted to hide the fact that he had breached the police Code of Practice.

According to the police's Code of Practice in regard to performing an undercover operation, undercover agents must submit their report about the operation as soon as possible. The Deceased was arrested on 5^th October 2005 and committed suicide on 10^th October 2005. But agent Yau only submitted his report to his supervisor as late as on 12^th October 2005. Agent Yau had plenty of time to finish his report and submit it to his supervisors before the Deceased committed suicide; but he did not so. Regarding the "coincidence" of the dates between Li Yuen-yee’s suicide and the submission date of agent Yau's report, one can hardly believe that agent Yau's report was not given with the motive to cover up his wrongful act in the Operation.

The Deceased committed suicide on 10^th October 2005, and there was extensive media coverage about the case on 12^th October 2005. In her farewell letters to her family, the Deceased indicated that her death was related to the activities carried out by the members of the said squad. However, agent Yau gave evidence during the Inquest that he knew nothing about the Deceased’s death. This cannot be possible.

Another issue which I find it hard to believe is agent Yau’s version of events which took place in the hotel room. Agent Yau when giving evidence during the Inquest said that Li Yuen-yee rushed into the bathroom after taking the money. He said that he then heard a sound of water flushing and then Li Yuen-yee left the room. If someone snatches another person’s money after blackmail and robbery, the only reasonable response is to rush out of the room straight away after snatching the money. Why would Li Yuen-yee not leave the room as fast as she could? Why would she then go to the bathroom with the urgency to flush the toilet? Another point which raises one’s suspicion is the fact that agent Yau did not take any action stop and to arrest her at that time, risking her leaving and escaping the attention of the other policeman.

When giving evidence during the Inquest, agent Yau explained that he did not attempt to take the money back from Li Yuen-yee to avoid struggling with Li Yuen-yee. He also gave evidence that his sergeant before the undercover operation, had instructed him not to struggle or fight with the target. However, after his police notebook was checked during the Inquest, he changed his evidence and said that he had not been so instructed by the sergeant. In any even this is not only a case of blackmail but a robbery which makes the said evidence more unbelievable.

Another contradiction in agent Yau’s evidence is that he told the Court that this was the first time he was instructed to be an undercover agent. However, his sergeant gave evidence during the Inquest that agent Yau had been an undercover agent for previous undercover operations. The question is why would agent Yau lie in Court.

Agent Yau said that after the Deceased left the room, he told his superior on the telephone that the Deceased had snatched HK$3,000, but he did not mention anything about blackmailing. When he went downstairs, and met the Deceased and the other police officers, he then said he had been blackmailed. Sergeant Yau Chuen-fai also confirmed this when he gave evidence in court. To report both blackmail and robbery is such a simple thing which should be done by agent Yau, and yet as trained police he failed to do it.

During an Undercover Operation, a police officer cannot have sexual intercourse or oral sex with man or woman, or make a request for sexual services in whatever situation as clearly stated in the Police Gudideline. If there is any sexual contact, the police officers must stop as soon as they already have enough evidence without jeopardizing the criminal investigation. Nonetheless, in his evidence during the Inquest, agent Yau pointed out that the Police Force does not provide training or guidelines about when the gathering of evidence would be sufficient. In his evidence, he stated that the decision about when to stop sexual contact rests solely on an agent’s own judgment. In this respect agent Yau’s evidence is inedible.

The Deceased stated that she intended to give up her life to disclose the indecent behavior of the officers and their attempt to frame her for blackmail to the public and to raise the awareness of the police force about what had really happened. My family and I hope that (APO would investigate this complaint seriously, they owe the public, my family, as well as members of the Hong Kong Police Force an explanation as to the "truth" of what really happened in this case. I truly hope that they can make a greater attempt to gather more evidence and penalize the guilty officer so that the Deceased can rest in peace.