CONFIDENTIAL
his acquittal on a technicality.
seen in the case of
As we have already
Regulation 59, which is
not formally a punishment, could be used even after
tie ancuiment you now propose In addition your proposal would seem
an acquittal.
certain to lead to a public outcry about kangaroo
courts as foreshadowed for example in the Far East
Economic Review. Given that no change is essential,
we would now, on balance, prefer to leave Regulation
62 as it is.
3.
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (your para 12):
Widening the scope of Section 10 will undoubtedly
make it more difficult to get agreement to change
and to reflect the Fugitive Offenders Act. Nevertheless we accept phur hérris apér
that your proposal is necessary if the provision is
to be effective. We therefore agree in general; but
for grammatical reasons, would prefer the middle
section to read " ... be presumed to be or to have
been in control of any pecuniary resources or
to nexa relativo
property held by any person who, having regard to the closeness of
his relationship to the accused and to any other
circumstances, there is reason to believe is or has
been holding such resources or property in trust
for or otherwise on behalf of the accused or has
also
acquired ...". You could also strengthen Section 10
as a whole by referring to a standard of living that
an officer "has maintained" or to pecuniary resources
etc that "have been" in his control.
4.
Section 7, Pensions Ordinance (your para 10):
Agreed.
华
CONFIDENTIAL
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN