HWB 14/17
R
SECRET
MAIN FILE
11 December, 1967.
16
25
Arli
I am writing to you at long last about the petition of Sergeant Chu Leung against his dismissal from the Hong Kong Police Force in 1962 (your Savingram No. 2740 of 24 November 1966, refers). This is a very difficult case that has caused us much concern here.
The details will be available to you, but I might briefly mention here the salient facts. Sergeant Chu Leung was dismissed the Hong Kong Police Force in 1962, after disciplinary enquiries presided over by an Assistant Commissioner of Police, on evidence obtained during the interrogation of four KMT agents. known that information about Special Branch activities against the KMT was being leaked. The four agents all implicated Sergeant Chu Leung. The Disciplinary Tribunal found against him on four of the nine charges. He accepted his dismissal, returned his medals when called upon to do so, and did not make any representations about the decision until 1965, when he wrote to you seeking reinstatement. You saw no grounds to intervene. August 1966 he addressed representations to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, copied to you and to Mr. Jenkin, M.P. has been treated as à petition to the Secretary of State (although it did not come through the proper channels).
This
In
In 1962, after his dismissal, proceedings were instituted for the revocation of Sergeant Chu's status as a British subject by naturalisation. A second full enquiry was held. The
Committee reported in 1963 and concluded that there was insufficient evidence that he had shown himself disloyal or disaffected to warrant withdrawal of his naturalisation. Your predecessor accepted this recommendation. As a result of this further enquiry in 1963, he caused the disciplinary proceedings to be carefully re- examined by one of the Hong Kong Law Officers. That Officer expressed doubt as to whether the evidence before the disciplinary enquiry was sufficiently strong to support the findings, but he endorsed the opinion of the Committee that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted with absolute fairness to Sergeant Chu.
The disciplinary proceedings have been examined by one of our legal advisers. In his view Sergeant Chu should not have been found guilty of the charges laid against him on the evidence available, which showed serious discrepancies and could have been fabricated. This conclusion is supported by Police Advisers and by those who handle disciplinary matters in the Ministry of Overseas Development.
We appreciate the reasons why cases involving penetration of Special Branch by KMT agents need to be rigorously dealt with but, given the serious doubts in this case (expressed both in Hong Kong and here) that the charges were proved, we feel strongly that some
remedial
SIR DAVID TRENCH, K.C.M.G., M.C.
SECRET