- 31 -
reason for this was that Godber, as yet, had committed no offence;
and there was the inhibiting effect of section 30.
But, if the constables patrolling the security areas or manning the entrance gates at the airport had been shown, or given,
a photograph of Godber and had been given instructions to stop and detain him if he attempted to pass the land/air barrier, surely
this could not be said to be disclosing to the constables that
Godber was subject to an investigation under the Prevention of
Bribery Ordinance. This would have been no more than putting him
on a kind of police Watch List. There would have been no breach
of section 30. But, of course, one has to bear in mind that the
Royal Hong Kong Police Force is a disciplined service; and it may
be that action such as I have suggested would have been out of the
question unless further action had been taken to interdict Godber.
During my inquiries, the question naturally arose as to
why Godber was not interdicted in accordance with Colonial Regulation 60, the relevant part of which reads:-
"60(1) The Governor may interdict an officer
from the exercise of powers and functions of his office if ...... criminal proceedings have been, or are likely to be, instituted against him."
As I have said, the Attorney General told me that, after studying the strength of the police case following the raid on 4th June,
he never felt so frustrated in his life. To me, that indicates
that, no matter what Godber said, it was almost certain that he
was going to be brought to trial. Nevertheless, it was the Attorney General's statutory duty to consider any representations made by Godber on or before 11th June before finally making up his mind
on the matter so that he could appropriately consent "to the institution
of" a prosecution. Can it, therefore, be said that between 4th and
11th June criminal proceedings were "likely to be instituted"?
The Commissioner's evidence on this reads:
"I considered the interdiction of Godber under Colonial Regulation 60; but I considered that the serving of a letter under section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance could not be construed as criminal proceedings having been instituted against him until he had either failed to submit the explanation called for or the explanation when submitted had not been