TNAG-0073-FCO40-109-Dismissal-from-police-force-petition-from-Chu-Leung-1968 — Page 101

Reference..

J

Flag

Flag F FED.AB.303

Flag H..

Flag K

Sir A. Gratten Bellow

Mr. Hicks Mr. Norwood

Mr. Carter

These papers concern a petition by a former Chinese Detective Sergeant of the Hong Kong Police, against his dismissal in 1962 following proceedings under Sec.28 of the police force ordinance. The History of the case is at (4) and the record of the proceedings in the T.S. Annex attached. The petitioners case rests on the findings of a Committee of Inquiry which subsequently considered the withdrawal of his British Nationality and recommended against such withdrawal on the grounds that they were not satisfied that the record of proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry contained sufficient evidence that the defendent had shown himself to be disloyal to the Crown. Their report and the Governor's comments on his further review of the case are at (4) on LEG.66/06.

2.

The case against Mr. Chu rests on the testimony of 4 KMT Agents who belonged to a KMT Intelligence Unit and certain circumstantial evidence that the unit had penetrated the Police Special Branch Section in which he was employed. The difficulty arises from the unreliability of the evidence of the Agents. This is not an uncommon problem in cases of compiracy, parti- cularly in Hong Kong where Chinese witnesses, by reason of their social traditions, are always liable to elaborate subjectively on their statements. Thus although the report of the 2nd Inquiry properly draws attention to the descrepancies in the details of the evidence of the 4 witnesses this is not, I think, a reason to set aside the findings of the Police Inquiry

assessment of the honesty of the witnesses who appeared before it. In so far one can now form conclusions as to Mr. Chu's guilt or innocence from the written record of proceedings there are circumstances, some of which are noted in e 5/5 below, which seem to put the case against the defendent above that of mere suspicion. As the Governor has pointed out, it is also of some significance, if not conclusive, that the petitioner has waited four years before petitioning against his dismissal.

3. In the case of police officers of Mr. Chu's rank it is normal practice for the Commissioner of Police to have the power of dismissal, subject to appeal to the Governor, and the Commissioner is normally expected to adjudicate such disciplinary cases himself. Despite the small misgivings expressed by the Governor that legal advice was not sought before the dismissal there would seem to be no real grounds on which to criticise the conduct of the Police disciplinary proceedings. In view of the nature of the charges the penalty could not be other than dismissal.

4. The Governor's view is that this is not a case in which justice requires any interference with the dismissal by the Commission of Police and I think this must be accepted. There seems to be no possibility of any further useful investigation of the circumstances. If this is agreed, apart from the reply to the petitioner, it remains to be considered what should be said to Mr. Patrick Jenkin M.P. with whom we have/correspondeme about the case.

See Flag A.

5.

I attach two drafts.

Da Rad

D.M. REED

LI September, 1967.

hac