230. In this inquiry I have endeavoured to assess public opinion on this question of separating the A.C. Office from the Police Force. Letters were addressed to members of the 3 councils, City District Officers, heads of Government departments, the Judiciary, the two branches of the legal profession in private practice and the press. I asked everyone to express their views on the question of separation--not only their own personal views but what they believed to be the views of the majority of members of the public; and, from the replies which I have received, it is clear that responsible bodies and individuals (including UMELCO, heads of departments and City District Officers) have endeavoured to assess public opinion. The vast majority of the replies received by the Commission advocate separation. Those in favour include:-
(i) The Chinese Press (unanimous)
(ii) Certain English language newspapers
(iii) UMELCO
(iv) The majority of heads of Government departments (including Sir Ronald HOLMES-Chairman of
the Public Services Commission)
(v) The City District Officers
(vi) The Hong Kong Bar Association
(vii) The Law Society of Hong Kong
(viii) The Reform Club
(ix) The Hong Kong Civic Association.
231. Arguments which have been advanced to the Commission in favour of separation.
1. That witnesses must be persuaded that they will be welcomed and not browbeaten when they make a report, subject, of course, to necessary safeguards to preclude reports based on rumour and revenge.
2.
3.
4.
It is an unfortunate fact that witnesses feel that they are "browbeaten" in police stations. But this applies to all classes of crime, not merely cases of corruption. Frequently, what complainants describe as "browbeating" is in fact, and is intended to be, close cross-examination on the part of the police for the express purpose of checking so far as possible that the report is not being made out of revenge or spite, or by some crank. This frequently happens as regards complaints alleging corruption. I do not see how this can be advanced as an argument in favour of separation. Any new agency would be faced with the same problem-unless they were prepared to waste a great deal of time investigating unfounded allegations and matters which, though morally wrong and socially undesirable, may not be crimes at all.
That, in corruption cases, evidence should be given in camera and not reported (as in matrimonial proceedings); witnesses should be given protective labels (Mr. X etc.) as in blackmail cases.
I am unable to understand how this can be advanced as an argument in favour of separation. No matter what law-enforcement agency is responsible for the investigation, under our adversary system of administering justice, an accuser must confront the person he is accusing in court. Whether it is in open court, or in camera, the accused will know who has complained against him. Many complainants are undoubtedly afraid of reprisals. (This applies also to cases with a Triad background); and although holding proceedings in camera and muzzling the press might reduce the chances of reprisals, there are serious objections to both hearings in camera and restrictions on court reporting. But, as I have said, all this has nothing to do with the question of separation.
That witnesses are browbeaten in court by counsel for the defence.
Counsel has a duty to test the truth of the evidence adduced in support of the prosecution case, and he can only do this by cross-examination. But, again, this is not an argument in favour of separation. It is only an argument in favour of some system of punishing persons alleged to be corrupt otherwise than after trial in court.
That witnesses fear that their confidences will not be respected and that they will render themselves liable to revenge.
This appears to be a variation of argument no. 2 above. The argument is: if, say, a pak pai driver refuses to pay a traffic police officer and gives evidence against him, the traffic police officer will harass the pak pai driver with unnecessary summonses, etc. But that is not an argument in favour of separation. Any new law-enforcement agency would be in the same position as the A.C. Office.
!
46