VURTIME I JASEN JO MORE TOP - NOS NO
GRS 750
IMMEDIATE
CYPHER CAT/A
FM HONG KONG 100500Z
CONFIDENTIAL
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY Me. 50
10 MAR 1975
HKK 14/1
TO IMMEDIATE F C O TELEGRAM NUMBER 227 OF 10 MARCH.
YOUR TELEGRAM NOS 143 AND 166: HUNT.
\ 69)
1. THE POSITION IS AS FOLLOWS.
2.
ACF.
22)
PA BD
18/3
A POLICE INVESTIGATION WITH ANY HOPE OF SUCCESS WOULD ONLY
BE POSSIBLE IF THIS WERE ONE OF
WN CASES. HAD THAT BEEN THE POSITION, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO TRACE INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS' OWN CASES THROUGH RECORDS. HOWEVER, SINCE HUNT STATES THAT IT WAS NOT ONE OF HIS CASES BUT THAT OF ANOTHER OFFICER (HE ALLEGING THAT HE WAS PRESENT BY CHANCE), AN INVESTIGATION WOULD BE QUITE IMPRACTICABLE.
3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED
STATEMENTS DURING BOTH
THE GODBER TRIAL AND THE TELEVISION INTERVIEW TO SEE WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO BASE A PROSECUTION ON THESE ALONE.
4.
PARAPHASED, HIS STATEMENTS FROM BOTH THOSE SOURCES GO NO FURTHER THAN AN ADMISSION THAT IN ABOUT 1954 AN UNKNOWN SUSPECT,
IN
PRESENCE, HAD A FIREWORK PLACED IN HIS ANUS AND SET ALIGHT BY OTHER POLICE OFFICERS, WITH RESULTS THAT WERE ''QUITE TERRIBLE!': THAT IT WAS DONE BY C.I.D. OFFICERS AND WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CONTEXT OF C.I.D. BRUTALITY: THAT THE CASE WAS NOT HIS AND THAT HE DID NOT REPORT THE INCIDENT NOR DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT.
5.
DEPLORABLE AS THESE ADMISSIONS ARE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO BASE A CHARGE ON THEM BECAUSE:-
(A) THE LACK OF PARTICULARITY OF THE DATE, PLACE, VICTIM AND INJURIES PRECLUDES A CHARGE BEING FRAMED.
(B) EVEN IF WE COULD OVERCOME THAT DIFFICULTY, THE LAW IS NOT AS ELLIS STATES IT TO BE.
COULD ONLY BE AN AIDER AND ABETTOR TO THIS OFFENCE ON THE GROUND OF HIS ENCOURAGEMENT OF IT IF WE COULD SHOW THAT HE INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE AND (UNDERLINE FOLLOWING WORD) WILFULLY DID ENCOURAGE THIS CRIME TO BE COMMITTED. MERE CONTINUED
CONFIDENTIAL
/ PRESENCE