could not concern itself with any administrative
aspects of Mr Ellis's case. He also made the
point that the evidence already available had
been gone over several times in the past. If
the Commission were to have any chance of turning
up anything new, it would be necessary for Mr
Ellis to set out clearly his evidence and
allegations of specific corruption in a form which
could be investigated by the Commission. In
particular it would be helpful if Mr Ellis could
set out in a memorandum the new evidence on
corruption which he would have put before the
1965 enquiry if he had appeared before it.
Perhaps
you would inform Mr Ellis accordingly, and suggest
that he submit his evidence in writing through
Mr Stuart, the Head of our Hong Kong & Indian
ws?
Ocean Department, whom he knows.
Turning to the question of the "wider
administrative abuse" to which Mr Ellis refers in
his letter of 7 December and which he alleges led
to the termination of his appointment in Hong
Kong; like you I am anxious that Mr Ellis should
accept that everything possible has been and is
being done to investigate his allegations. I
hope he can come to accept that, any question of
corruption apart, the Hong Kong Government were
within their contractual right to terminate his
probationary appointment in the way that they did.
The core of his case is that the reasons for his
discharge were distorted by corruption. He himself
stressed this in his interview with the Overseas
Police Adviser. I can only urge him, as you have
/done,
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN