Mr. Huijsman
Reference......
The H.K. Governments' case as set out at (25) rests on the contention that there was evidence on which a reasonable man could have reached the conclusion of guilt and that defects in procedure at the Inquiry do not alter that fact. If the defects in question had been irregularities that did not materially prejudice CHU and if, in spite of them, there was still enough left at the end of the day to warrant a conclusion of guilt, I would agree with this contention. But that is not the sort of case we are dealing with.
2.
The defect in this case, as Sir Arthur Grattan-Bellew, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Sneath (the H.K. Law Officer who dealt with the case) all agree, was that the evidence adduced at the Inquiry was not sufficient to support the charges. If this is so, it is difficult to see how the contention that there was evidence on which a reasonable man could have reached a conclusion of guilt can be maintained since, in my view, this case must stand or fall by what happened at the Inquiry. Any deficiency in the evidence adduced there cannot later be made good by assertions that if the case had been differently handled abundant proof would have been forthcoming, nor by praying in aid CHU's conduct subsequent to his dismissal and the opinions of his colleagues as to his guilt. All this, to my mind, knocks the main prop from under the Hong Kong Government's case and leads inevitably to the conclusion that CHU should not have been dismissed.
3.
I agree that disciplinary proceedings cannot be conducted in strict accordance with the principles and practice appropriate to criminal trials but they must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. That would hardly be the case if these matters were to be decided, not on facts proved by the application of the accepted procedures, but on facts that might have been proved, on other peoples' opinions and on other matters that the officer charged has no opportunity to contest and may not even know about. There seems a danger of that happening here.
Johnfula
(John Field)
28/8/68.
CODE 18-75
tww.s. Carter (Co)
1 Sufrich
with the views xpressed by Sir A. Gratton, Bellew and Sir J. Field. If the Minister sees to Jenkins Ive could scarcely avoid disclosing the facts swoted in the two preceding mismuntes. In that event the conclusion, to be draws, is pretty obrsions and is set out in tering is para> of Sir A. Gratton, Belles's minute. Were it a question. solely within, ODM compethice it is most milikely that any differint advice would be the dared to our Minister.
2.
Giver, the wider men vernibilities of the co for Horybory you may wish to consider whether sind, would he pained by disclosing He facts to our Jenkins and not drawing the appropriate conchi, If this course sehing nadvisable the only the alter, ative recorivichided by Sri A. Grattan, Bellew thians, but it is not likely to be
an easy one.
f.
57ix
slix, fir