HKK 14/17
Miss Kelly (HKOID)
REPORT ON GODBER CASE
CONFIDENTIAL
Flag
53
1.
Please refer to your minute of 6 July.
2.
A
Flag B
Flag C
Flag
D
I see no objection to the recommendation in paragraph 6 (B) (II) of the Governor's telegram at folio 51. I suggest however that the Attorney-General's power to order surrender of travel documents should be for a limited period only and that if the documents are to be surrendered in excess of that period, the order of a magistrate should be required.
3.
As for the recommendation in paragraph 6 (B) (I) of folio 51, I have read through the back papers and note that:-
4.
(a) in the paper behind folio 26 on HKK 14/38 we took the view that
clause 10(2) of the Bill was "valueless";
(b) in the comments we sent to Hong Kong with folio 3 on HKK 14/18 Part A we said that the amendments made to the Bill (which included the insertion of clause 10(2)) did not meet the objections to clause 10 we had previously raised;
(c) clause 10(2) was mentioned in paragraph 4 of the submission at
folio 40 on HKK 14/18 Part B as having been inserted to meet criticism in Hong Kong;
(d) folio 46 on that file gives the view of the Attorney-General in London that section 10 as enacted was contrary to the basic provisions of English law.
I have discussed the possible deletion of subsection 10(2) with Mr Fifoot and Mr Greenwood. We all consider that the deletion of sub- section (2) will make the section even more objectionable than it is at present. Given that the object of the deletion is to prevent a suspect from absconding, we wonder whether the suggested provision dealing with travel documents, plus perhaps a provision making it a criminal offence to leave Hong Kong when action under s. 10(2) has been taken, would not suffice to meet this object, assuming of course that any necessary police precautions are taken.
5. We recognise however that the Godber case has so rattled the authorities in Hong Kong that they will find it hard to see any merit in retaining s. 10(2).
6. For my part, I am not satisfied that the deletion of s. 10(2) is needed on practical grounds and I should prefer to keep it:
(a) to protect officers who may come under suspicion in circumstances
less clear-cut than in the Godber case (which may otherwise be
CONFIDENTI AL
/one
58