was drawn up by Mr Henry Litton QC, the Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association. It is not clear whether they are referring to the letter to Mr Griffiths (and presumably other MPs) or to the petition which we understand they intend to deliver to Buckingham Palace. Mr Litton wrote an article in the Hong Kong Law Journal challenging the use of CR 55 in these cases. He received comparatively little support from other Hong Kong lawyers, or from the public at large.
6.
It is difficult to give a wholly convincing reply to
Mr Griffiths.
-
The men were compulsorily retired for very good reasons in a way in which justice was not publically shown to have been done;
and since the officers themselves were not informed
of the reasons for the action taken against them we cannot now tell Mr Griffiths that the officers were dismissed.because of their
involvement in corrupt activities. Indeed, it would be wrong even to hint that this was the reason for their compulsory retire- ment. We must therefore rely on the very careful consideration given to each case; the endorsement of the procedure used and the decisions reached by Ministers; and the generous way in which the officers concerned were treated by the Hong Kong Government. All those who were entitled, through length of service, to pensions have received them in full; and, contrary to the impression given in the letter to Mr Griffiths, they were treated in exactly the same way as any other retired police officers as regards housing: in the great majority of cases, the former officers have been allowed to remain in their police quarters until suitable public housing
is available.
7.
In these circumstances, I recommend that Lord Goronwy-Roberts should reply to Mr Griffiths on the lines of the attached draft. The department Legal Adviser concurs.
12 December 1978
1
agree
Kars is
R JT McLaren
Hong Kong and General Department
the right time to take; but neve
slightly amended the drafti
اسيا
13/12