(v)
On the 4th June, he was served with a notice under
Section 10(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance,
a prosecution against him under Section 10(1)(b) of that
ordinance being under consideration. He was given
until the 11th June 1973 to make ropresentations under
the ordinance to the Attorney-General.
(vi)(a) on the 4th June 1973, his car was searched and in it were
found 3 folders containing various addresses, some at all
events, of which were vice establishments in Kowloon, Hong
Sums of money
Kong Island and The New Territories.
were also mentioned in the folders.
(vii)
(b) It should be noted that there was nothing to show either
that Godber had received such sums or that such suns
formed any part of the $4.3 in accretion to his wealth.
On the 8th June 1973, Godber left Fong Kong, eventually
arriving in the United Kingdom.
3.
There is no doubt that the above mentioned facts would mozit
his prosecution under the Ordinance.
4.
There is however no such offence in the Criminal celcnder
of the United Kingdom. Any attempt to sxtradite him for
prosccution under Section 10 would therefore be doomed to failure.
5.(i)
There remains to consider whether or no extradition
proceedings could be launched with a view to his prosccution under Section
4(2) of the ordinance.
(ii)
exists.
In my view they could not, as the evidenec at present
Page 135Page 136