TNAG-0073-FCO40-109-Dismissal-from-police-force-petition-from-Chu-Leung-1968 — Page 40

Reference..

S

support?

equalto that /

It seems to me that there are three possible courses open to the Minister, each will probably cause difficulties. The Minister can refuse to see Mr. Jenkin, he can agree to see him, he can change his mind and intervene in the case directing that the police officer should be granted an ex gratia pension.

2. I certainly agree with paragraph 2 of Mr. Carter's minute of 20 August namely, that if the Minister sees Mr. Jenkin he should be prepared to go into the case in some detail.

3. If the Minister refuses to see Ir. Jenkin, the inference which Mr. Jenkin will probably draw is that either the Minister doubts the integrity of Mr. Jenkin or that it was not security considerations which prevented the Minister from disclosing his reasons for not intervening.

40 I do not know what the Minister's reasons were, but if they were based on the items listed in paragraph 16 of the Governor's letter at (25), then it does not appear, to me that there are any security considerations barring the disclosure. If Mr. Jenkin were to be informed of these reasons, he might well be as unimpressed as I am. He might also protest that the excuse given in the Minister's letter at (31) was untrue.

5. As to Mr. Carter's proposals on what the Minister might say to Mr. Jenkin (paragraph 3 of his minute) I must point out that, in my view, it is incorrect to say that the advice of the Committee of Inquiry under the British Nationality Act was not incompatible with the earlier decision to dismiss the Sergeant. Even the Governor of Hong Kong, in Savingram of 4 June, 1963 ((4) in LEG 66/06 1963-65) states that the findings of the Committee had cast some doubt upon the disciplinary inquiry; and the Committee in its Report (paragraph 8 of E/4) stated as follows:-

to

"When we considered the evidence just referred (of the K.M.T. agents) we came to the conclusion that the discrepancies were too many and great to be accounted as mere slips of memory. Furthermore the evidence was entirely that of persons who were self-confessed spies and of which there was not the slightest corro- boration involving the Defendant".

In connexion with the identification of the Defendant, the Committee stated that in all the circumstances they were unable to place very much weight on this portion of the evidence placed before them.

6. If the Minister refers to the review of the disciplinary proceedings in 1963 by one of the law officers, I do not see how he can keep from Mr. Jenkin the conclusion reached by that law officer. Mr. Jenkin would be bound to press for such informa- tion and then the Minister would have to admit that the long Kong law officer expressed doubts as to whether evidence of the disciplinary inquiry was sufficiently strong to report the findings. Mr. Jenkin might well ask what was the view of the Minister's legal advisers.

7. My view is still that the Secretary of State should inter- vene and that Chu Leung should be granted 2^ ex-gratia pension which he would have been granted had he retired in 1962 on the grounds that it was in the public interest for him to retire. If this advice is not acceptable, then it seems to me that the less difficult of the other two possible courses i$ for the Minister to refuse to see Mr. Jenkin. If he does refuse, then there can be no turning back, I suggest; and therefore there should not be a refusal unless it is agreed by the Minister that he is prepared to maintain the position,

Sir J. Field P.T.O.

af hatten Billur

(A. Grattan-Bellew)

23 August, 1968