34
have 'blown' surveillance and he could then complain that he was being harassed. We were anxious to do nothing that might prejudice the case.
I explained to the Commissioner of Police why I felt surveillance was wrong and that the law such as it is left us with little to do except await the expiry of the seven-day period he had been given by the Attorney General."
It is easy to criticise those reasons, looking at the
matter in retrospect. One naturally asks oneself now: what good
was the stop list in the case of a police officer of Godber' $
seniority, armed, as he was, with a "red" Civil Aviation permit and his police warrant card? I do not understand reason (a).
Surveillance simply means that the police are observing the
movements of the suspect. He could not legitimately complain
to a court of law that he was being "harassed", provided that
nothing was done which could be said to amount to an obstruction
of his freedom of movement.
As regards the effectiveness of surveillance, that
is an entirely different matter on which, perhaps, I am not
competent to express a view. I accept Fr. Dawson's evidence
that Godber had been an expert instructor in this field and
knew all the "tricks of the trade". I also accept his evidence
that it may be difficult for Chinese surveillance officers to
keep an eye on an expatriate target 24 hours a day in that the
expatriate may frequent buildings into which it would be impossible
for a Chinese police officer to go without making himself obvious.
I also accept the fact that a full surveillance for a week would
involve a very considerable number of officers. Ir. Dawson said
that it might involve as many as 50 officers, having regard to the fact that the "observers" have to be changed frequently **** A.
very considerable amount of man power, especially at the height
of the Fight Violent Crime Campaign.
On the other hand, Godber was a very important target.
He was far more than a suspect. The police attitude was that the
7 days allowed to Godber was simply a waste of time; and I agree
with them. In these circumstances, it seems to me that some
surveillance would have been better than no surveillance at all.