>
(
248
4
Section 22 enacts whenever any subordinate officer shall be guilty of any neglect or violation of duty in his office, or of any other misconduct as air officer, he shall, upon conviction thereof before a Magistrate in a summary manner, forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars, and in default, &c.
Section 23 vesta in the Captain Superintendent disciplinary powers of imprisonment up to seven days, and of fine up to twenty-five dollars, over Constables only.
Section 24 enacts "the Governor shall have power upon the representation of the Captain Superintendent to dismiss any subordinate officer or constable for misconduct or neglect of duty."
10.-Section 24 read literally and apart from its context appears to empower the Governor to dismiss any officer in the Police Force except the l'olice clerks and the Captain Superintendent, and perhaps the Deputy Superintendent, without any form of enquiry whatever, simply upon a representation of the Captain Superintendent. But if some form of enquiry is to be assumed as implied, then your Petitioner claims that it must be that form made applicable to him as an officer holding an office of the third class under Colonial Rules and Regulations 66, 83-86, subject to the modification, perhaps, introduced by the local law of trial by the Governor in person instead of by the Governor in Council, whereby the case is assimilated to that of a first or junior class officer under Colonial Rule 96 (d).
11-Your Petitioner, however, claims that section 24 of Ordinance 14 of 1887 ought to be construed with the context, namely sections 22 and 23 (see schedule 3), and that upon the proper construction of these three sections the
of
dismissal given by section 24 is not exerciseable except after power summary
Such a construction your trial before a Magistrale under section 22. Petitioner contends is alone reasonable and conformable with the spirit of English criminal law. On a trial before the Magistrate the subordinate officer would at least have the common rights of every criminal, and such a trial, whether terminating in a conviction or not, would furnish H.E. the Governor with valid materials on which to procced to dismissal, if he thought fit, upon a representation by the Captain Superintendent.
12.-Finally, under this head, your Petitioner urges that whatever the right construction of the foregoing sections of Ordinance No. 14 of 1887 may be, and whatever may be his strict legal rights in regard to having a trial, in conformity with Colonial Office Rules 85-86 (see schedule 2), the enquiry should at least have been conducted according to the substance and spirit of those rules. But your Petitioner affirms that the enquiry was not a fair one, firstly because the Captain Superintendent who acted as judge was also prosecutor, and a prosecutor so strongly committed to a particular opinion (bona fide no doubt) that the result of an enquiry by him was a foregone conclusion, and secondly because the mode of conducting the examination was not fair.
5
13.-To return to the origin of the charge. No. 3, East Street was raided on 21st June, 1897. Sham In was convicted on the 7th July, 1897. On the 13th July two other Inspectors, a Sergeaut, and your Petitioner were called before the Captain Superintendent and informed by him that they were suspended on a charge of gross neglect of duty in not reporting a gambling house at No. 2, Wah Lane, to which he added that he hoped in a short time to obtain evidence on which to charge them with a much graver offence. That shows the state of the Captain Superintendent's convictions at that date. Now your Petitioner begs to point out that although he has never been formally charged with any graver offence than the above one of gross neglect of duty, he is to-day dismissed and disgraced and visited with the maximum penalty, direct and indirect, through the loss of his pension, which it was in the power (assuming that legally he had the power) of His Excellency the Governor to award. Petitioner had corruptly betrayed his trust the punishment is reasonable and If right; but as punishment for an act of negligence, however great it is, he submits, grossly excessive in view of four and twenty years of unblemished and meritorious service.
Your Petitioner dwells on the above facts as showing, firstly, beyond all quibbling, the real nature of the offence for which he has been sentenced, though not charged, and, secondly, as showing the attitude of mind of his judge at a very early stage of the case.
14. Further in illustration of this latter point, your Petitioner claims attention to the statements of the three men Yeung Fat, Tang Chung and O Mi-cheung. One of these men wrote to your Petitioner immediately after being banished, and your Petitioner, after his dismissal, made it his business to collect their evidence. Their statements were verified on oath and declaration before Mr. Fraser, British Vice-Consul at Canton, after the Consul had communicated with the Hongkong Governmont (for copies of these statements, sec schedule 4 hereto), and your Petitioner thinks that they should in fairness be considered as throwing some light upon the case against him. Your Petitioner is ignorant whether the notes of these men's evidence taken before the Captain Superintendent were submitted to H.E. the Governor prior to your Petitioner's dismissal or not.
15.-Two of these men were entitled to pensions, all three bad been many years on the Police, two with the rank of Sergeant. All three had their families, homes, and connections in Hongkong; suddenly banishment orders were issued against them and all were arrested and, whether legally or not, lodged in Victoria Gaol. All of them were promised absolution from their own offences, and, practically speaking, were guaranteed continuance in their offices on the single condition of substantiating an accusation against the British officers, and all three resisted the temptations so held out. Not only did they not yield to the inducements offered to them, but they also withstood threats of criminal prosecution. Two of them even after banishment rejected the offer held out to them to return and be reinstated upon the above condition.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.