7
6. As regards clause 15, the Attorney-General agreed to re-
examine this clause in the light of comments from the legal profession in Hong Kong. It appears from the memorandum for Executive Council that the Bar Association expressed concern
about this provision and so also did the Hong Kong Law Society.
Yet no amendment of real substance has been made to this clause.
7. If it were to be agreed that the Hong Kong Government may
proceed with the Bill in its present form it means, as the Bill
has been submitted in draft to the FCO, that the provisions are being enacted with the approval of Ministers. Therefore, if the
matter were questioned in the House presumably Ministers would
have to try and justify these provisions, some of which, in my
view, are not justifiable even in the circumstances of Hong Kong.
8. The question of whether the provisions which I have referred
to above should be accepted is the sort of question to which the
Prime Minister, it seems to me, was referring in his personal
minute of the 25th September 1967 and is covered by the Prime Minister's memorandum on consultation of the Law Officers, which
is attached to that minute. (This memorandum has been reproduced in Vol. 2 of the Diplomatic Service Procedure 4 (5).). I
therefore suggest that if consideration is to be given to
accepting these departures from certain fundamental principles of
the British judicial system and agreeing to making the
and unexplained possession of property a criminal offence,[if Ministers are inclined to agree, then, the advice of the Law Officers
should be obtained through a letter addressed to Mr. Hetherington,
Legal Secretary to the Law Officers.
9. I can be available for discussions with the Governor on
Tuesday, the 9th, or Wednesday, the 10th, but preferably not on Monday, the 8th December.
Room 44/2, Downing Street West,
Main B, Ext. 1090.
ad. fratte Baller
(Sir A. Grattan-Bellew)
5th December, 1969
P.S. I understand that the unexplained possession of resources has been a disciplinary offence in Hong Kong for some years now. It would be interesting to know how often, if at all, officers have been charged with such a disciplinary offence. If it has not proved possible to institute disciplinary proceedings in respect of the unexplained possession of resources, then, I suggest that it would be pointless to introduce such a controversial provision on the statute book as a criminal offence.
auf frattien Beller 8/18/69