TNAG-0076-FCO40-112-Retirement-of-the-Commissioner-of-Police-1967 — Page 19

Code 18-75

TOP SECRET

(26)

Reference.

Original on OOM 676

54742 FED (T.S.)

Mr. Hall

You asked me whether, if it were necessary to seek the compulsory retirement of Mr. Tyrer, we could not proceed through the application of the "45 Rule" rather than under C.R. 68.

2.

Regulation 380 of the Establishment Regulations of the Hong Kong Government reads as follows:-

"Compulsory retirement under the Pensions Ordinance,

Chapter 89

380. Compulsory retirement between the age of 45 and the normal age of retirement is governed by the following procedure:-

(a)

(b)

(c)

An officer may be required by the Governor in Council to retire at any time between the age of 45 and the normal age of retirement, if this course is considered to be in the public interest (Section 8(2)(a) of the Pensions Ordinance, Chapter 89).

Departments wishing to recommend that an officer be retired after attaining the age of 45, but before attaining the normal retiring age, should first obtain the approval of the Establishment Officer. The Department should then inform the officer so that the officer has the opportunity of opposing the recommendation if he so wishes. If an officer wishes to make any representations against his proposed compulsory retirement he must send them to his Department within 14 days of the date on which he received his Department's letter, or within one

The month if the officer is outside Hong Kong. officer's representations, if any, together with departmental comments should then be forwarded to

the Establishment Branch.

If the Governor in Council (with the approval of the Secretary of State in cases where his approval is required), orders an officer to retire after attaining the age of 45 but before attaining the normal retiring age, the reasons for the decision need not be given to the officer.

Sections (a) and (c) would apply to Mr. Tyrer and his retirement would be retirement "in the public interest". In this respect it would not differ from proceedings under C.R. 63 except that in the case of the application of the Hong Kong Regulation the Governor in Council must consider the case and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, although the reasons

It follows, for the decision need not be given to the officer.

I think, if the reasons are not given to an individual officer that individual officer will have no right or opportunity to submit his comments on them. In the case of proceedings under C.R. 68, involving a statement of complaint and an opportunity to comment, action may be initiated by the Governor alone and not the Governor in Council. I cannot, of course, say whether the Governor would wish to discuss this case in Council in Hong Kong before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State.

TOP SECRET

/As