of such person and his production before a magistrate; and where, on any such application, it is made to appear to the magistrate upon the oath of any person that there is reasonable cause to believe that the person whose apprehension is sought is preparing or about to leave Hong Kong and that, in all the circumstances, the investigation could not reasonably have been completed before the date of the applica- tion, he may issue a warrant to apprehend such person and to cause him to be brought before a magistrate as soon after apprehension as is practicable to be dealt with according to sub-section (3).
(2)
(3)... the magistrate shall, unless the person apprehended can satisfy the magistrate that he is not preparing or about to leave the Colony and that he has no intention of leaving the Colony offer to admit him to bail, on his procuring or producing such surety or sureties as, in the opinion of the magis- trate, will be sufficient to ensure his appearance on such day and at such time and place as the magistrate decides... and thereupon the magistrate shall take the recognizance of such person and his surety or sureties conditional for the appearance of such person on such day . . .”.
The police would have had no difficulty in satisfying a magistrate that the "investigation could not reasonably have been completed before the date of the application". Section 10(2) of the Ordinance saw to that. But, whether or not GODBER's refusal to surrender his passport would have been sufficient to cause the magistrate to issue his warrant seems doubtful. I suppose it would have depended on whether or not the police found themselves in a position to inform the magistrate, by affidavit or otherwise, that they could prove, up to the hilt, that GODBER was in control of financial resources totalling over $4.3 million; and that it appeared that about two-thirds of this sum was acquired by him during the last few years; and that this was the total of a series of large sums in bank accounts in various other parts of the world in the joint names of GODBER and his wife; that GODBER knew the strength of the prosecution case against him; that he had not yet answered the Attorney General's letter; and that there was no known reason why he should want to use his passport.
GODBER might have chosen to surrender his passport to the magistrate. That would, perhaps, have been the best way of satisfying a court that he had no intention of departing from Hong Kong. On the other hand, having regard to the low figures fixed by the courts for bail over the years, GODBER might well have chanced his luck by refusing to surrender his passport and agreeing to any sum the court cared to fix. Supposing the court had fixed bail in the sum of $250,000 hard cash—a most unlikely event-would that have deterred GODBER from departing from Hong Kong? Not for a moment. He could have drawn a cheque on his Hong Kong bank account for this amount; and even if the court forfeited his bail, he would still have had left over $4 million. The grant of bail by the courts in serious cases of corruption is fraught with the greatest dangers. I shall have more to say on this topic in my second report.
If GODBER had attempted to pass through Immigration Control, I imagine that the police would have invoked the procedure laid down in section 18, and any amount of bail that the court was likely to fix would have been quite ineffective as regards ensuring GODBER'S continued presence in Hong Kong. But, presumably, surveillance would then have been ordered, and security at Kai Tak would have been rigorously enforced.
Conclusions
(1) GODBER left Hong Kong at approximately 2.30 p.m. on Friday 8th June 1973 by Singapore Airlines flight SQ631. In all probability, he did so without the active assistance of any person. The probability is that he did not attempt to pass through Immigration Control because his name had been put on the Watch List and any attempt on his part to pass through Immigration Control in the ordinary way would have resulted in his being stopped and detained. In all probability, having checked in and obtained his board- ing pass, he passed the constable on duty at the west (no. 5) gate wearing his Civil Aviation Department permit which gave him unrestricted access to all parts of the airport. Having got through the land/air barrier, he simply walked up the "finger" or ramp which leads directly into the transit/departure lounge, surrendered his boarding pass in the usual way and boarded the plane with the other passengers. (2) He arrived at Heathrow Airport, London, on Saturday 9th June 1973 on a flight from somewhere on the
Continent of Europe.
(3) After GODBER's flat had been searched on 4th June, the Police decided to arrest him at the earliest possible opportunity; but, they were precluded from doing so prior to 11th June because the Attorney General had been forced by law to give GODBER a reasonable opportunity to make representations in regard to his pecuniary resources totalling $4.3 million.
(4) On 7th June the Assistant to the Attorney General (Mr. PENLINGTON) discussed with the Director of the Anti-Corruption Office, Mr. MORRIN, the timing of GODBER's arrest on 11th June and his appearance before the court, on the assumption that the Attorney General would decide to proceed. Mr. PENLINGTON
18