A shot in the dark
THE rule of law is a fine and wonderful thing, but it does have one drawback: people sometimes suppose that if they have fulfilled their legal obligations they have also met their moral ones.
This abstruse reflection was prompted by the case of Cheng Chun-fai, who has some claim to being Hong Kong's unluckiest man.
Mr Cheng's run of misfortunes started one day in April last year when he was standing outside his dispensary in Tai Kok Tsui. A battle suddenly broke out between a group of visiting gold collectors, sporting grenades and an AK-47, and the local constabulary, armed like Dirty Harry.
In the course of this fracas Mr Cheng was hit by what is euphemistically known as a ''stray bullet''. Of course bullets do not wander the streets aimlessly. All we mean by this phrase is that the person who pulled the trigger either did not know that hisgun was pointing at Mr Cheng or supposed him to be someone else.
Mr Cheng was hit in the chest. He has not worked since, which does not seem too surprising. What is surprising is that he has been living, in effect, on public assistance.
This brings us to the second part of Mr Cheng's misfortune. The bullet which laid him low was fired not by the larcenous AK-47, but by a law-abiding police revolver.
Having discovered this embarrassing detail, the investigation into the matter came down with a case of that mysterious debility which often afflicts research by policemen into their colleagues' activities. So we do not know exactly why the policeman concerned potted a pharmacist instead of the help-yourself jewellery shoppers at whom he was presumably aiming.
WE must therefore assume that this was a completely innocent mistake, which no amount of care or training could have prevented.
All the same it was bad news from Mr Cheng's point of view, because of a curiosity in the way these matters are dealt with legally.
If Mr Cheng had been run over, in a moment of carelessness, by me, he would have been eligible for a large pay-out from my insurer.
If he had been shot, whether carelessly or not, by one of the robbers, he would be eligible for a smaller, but still quite generous, libation from the criminal injuries compensation fund of the Social Welfare Department.
As the bullet which hit him was fired by our Finest, however, he is treated differently. He was given $50,000.
And that is all he is going to get. I say this with some confidence because I found this case lurking in a corner of the court page last week, where it was recorded that Mr Cheng's case had, after much vain footwork by the lawyers, exhausted the enthusiasm even of that home of lost causes, the Legal Aid Department.
Hope had expired, apparently, because there was no new evidence in the case. The government has fulfilled its legal obligations entirely in the matter. It is probably not strictly obliged to compensate people shot by inaccurate policemen at all. And the question which bothers me is: is this good enough? The law looks for fault. There is no fault in this case. We have stipulated that the policeman acted in all innocence. Nevertheless he acted on behalf of us, and of our government. Does that not imply some responsibility for the consequences? Mr Cheng was an innocent victim. The law-enforcement machinery inadvertently wrecked his life. Surely there is an obligation to provide help, and generous help at that.
Could some leakage not be arranged from the fund with which the owner of the Magic Numberplate rewards talkative and informative members of the underworld? I am sure Mr Cheng has some advice he would be happy to communicate to his local police persons. They might as well pay for it. He already has.
