TNAG-0259-FCO40-295-Legislation-for-prevention-of-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 17

Done

AME

9.670

3. So

you agree

with the

two dregin for?

In particular,

do

curries it rece

песенкит

you

su

to mention clause 25 at all.

parss

25-27 of draft submission?

ANG

до 2.670.

Mr. A.W. Gaminara

On re-reading these papers it seemed to me at first that I had too readily agreed to the proposed compromise concerning clause 10; and that it was really pointless in proposing to the Hong Kong Government that they should substitute the Malaysian provision in place of clause 10, in view of the new clause 25 which has only recently been inserted in the Bill and which confers upon the Government a presumption of corruption which goes much further than the Malaysian provision.

2. However, on further consideration it seems to me that the Malaysian provision could prove useful and that the assistance that such a provision could give the prosecution is not entirely covered by the new clause 25. For example, if there is a dispute as to whether the accused was or was not given an advantage and it is a case of one man's word against another, it is possible that the court might give the accused the benefit of the doubt, and then of course clause 25 would not apply. But if the law contains the Malaysian provision this would probably be just enough to tip the scale in favour of the prosecution. If you agree with the views I have expressed immediately above, than I would suggest that the draft Savings Despatch to the Governor should spell out this advantage of the Malaysian provision.

3.

I am going on leave tomorrow until 29 June. If you require legal advice during this period, you could refer the papers to Mr. Rushford.

al. fratten Baller

(Sir A. Grattan-Bellew)

5 June, 1970.