TNAG-0073-FCO40-109-Dismissal-from-police-force-petition-from-Chu-Leung-1968 — Page 61

CONFIDENTIAL

2

In the administration of our system of criminal law it is considered better in the long term that nine guilty men should get off than that one innocent man should be convicted; but this means in practice that justice is not done in the individual case where the clearly guilty man successfully appeals because of some defects in the procedure of his trial. I cannot, the re fore, accept that because a Court of Appeal, applying the standards of our criminal law, would have allowed an appeal in this case that therefore justice has not been done.

3.

Because I take this view I am now most reluctant to expose ourselves to the political embarrassment which will inevitably follow if we make an act of clemency in this case.

4.

In reconsidering this case we took advantage of our Solicitor General's visit to London at the beginning of March and he had a helpful discussion with McPetrie, Grattan-Bellew and Carter. A substantial part of what follows was included in their discussion.

5.

Our main objection to the proposal that CHU should now be paid an ex-gratia pension is that such a step would be tantamount to an admission that he should never have been dismissed. It would almost certainly lead to demands for his honourable reinstatement.

6.

Although we agree that doubts were expressed here in 1963 as to whether the evidence before the disciplinary enquiry was sufficiently strong to support the findings, it must be emphasised that we were, and still are, satisfied that the proceedings were conducted with absolute fairness, that CHU had every opportunity of making his defence and that had the inconsistenc ies of the evidence been brought to the attention of the Officer conducting the enquiry, he could have remedied the situation.

7.

There is, in my opinion, much force in the view that the adjudicating officer, who was the only person in a position to judge fully the demeanour of the accused and the witnesses could have found against CHU on the basis of the evidence disclosed in his report. The Commissioner at the time, in rejecting CHU's appeal, clearly held the same opinion.

CONFIDENTIAL