Colonial Regulations 61 and 62 read:
"61. If criminal proceedings are instituted against an officer, disciplinary proceedings based upon any grounds involved in the criminal charge shall not be taken pending the determination of the criminal proceedings.
62. An officer acquitted of a criminal charge shall not be punished in respect of any charges upon which he has been acquitted, but he may nevertheless be punished on any other charges arising out of his conduct in the matter which do not raise substantially the same issues as those on which he has been acquitted and the appropriate proceedings may be taken for the purpose."
For the reasons given by me in paragraphs 180–190, I recommend that Colonial Regulations 61 and 62 be revoked and that the so-called cardinal principle mentioned in paragraph 178 be abandoned.
As regards officers on contract, when the Government terminates such a contract by giving the officer the appropriate notice or salary in lieu, it is undesirable that the officer should also be given reasons for terminating the contract; and I strongly recommend that a practice which has grown up of giving reasons in such circumstances should cease. (paragraphs 192–193).
As regards officers on probation, for the reasons given in paragraph 195, Establishment Regulation 303 should either be amended or revoked.
(f) Compulsory Retirement. For the reasons given in paragraphs 201-208, I recommend that Colonial Regulation 59 be revoked and that section 8(2) of the Pensions Ordinance Cap. 89 be amended by the deletion of the words
"after he attains the age of 45 years".
(g) Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. I suggest that serious consideration be given to making representa- tions to the Secretary of State that paragraph (c) of section 3(1) of the Fugitive Offenders Act be amended so as to make it apply only to offences against the law of "designated Commonwealth countries"; alternatively, that a proviso be added to the effect that it shall not apply to offences contained in Colonial legislation in respect of which Her Majesty has not exercised Her power of disallowance; alternatively, that it be declared that paragraph (c) shall not apply to Hong Kong. I also recommend that the amendment should be made retrospective to 1967. (paragraphs 209-216).
(h) Future of the Anti-Corruption Office. The question whether the A.C. Office should be separated from the Police Force has been in issue for at least 12 years; and in paragraphs 218-229, I have outlined the history of the matter. The question was hotly debated when the Prevention of Bribery Bill was under discussion in 1970; and an assurance was given at that time that the question would be further considered in 3 years time.
In this inquiry, I have endeavoured to assess public opinion; and from the communications which I have received from responsible bodies and individuals, it appears that public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of separation. Those in favour include:
The Chinese press
Certain English-language newspapers
UMELCO
The majority of the heads of Government departments (including Sir Ronald HOLMES—
Chairman of the Public Services Commission)
The City District Officers
The Hong Kong Bar Association
The Law Society of Hong Kong
The Reform Club
The Hong Kong Civic Association.
In paragraphs 231-237, I have marshalled and analysed the arguments for and against separa- tion. As Sir Ronald HOLMES said, the arguments for retaining the A.C. Office in the Police Force are largely organizational and the arguments for removing it are largely political and psychological. For the reasons which I have given in paragraphs 234-237, this Commission is not in a position to make a firm recommendation either way. My approach to the problem is summed up in paragraph 237 in these words:-
... what may well be a matter of great importance to the Governor in making a policy decision on the question of separation is the fact that there appears to be a widespread loss of confidence in the ability of the Police to investigate corruption cases with im-
54