TNAG-0405-FCO40-451-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 15

M

for. But, it seemed to me that Godber might well be prejudiced if potential jurors in any future prosecution were, through the news media, to become aware of matter which would not be admissible

at his trial. I had no doubt but that the proceedings of the

inquiry, if held in open court, would receive full press coverage.

My other reason was simply this: It was a reasonable presumption that, on the evidence which the police had apparently collected with a view to instituting a prosecution under section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, they would continue their inquiries with a view to framing further charges under sections 3 or 4(2) of the Ordinance. Clearly, as regards section 10, it was

necessary that I should ascertain what was the strength of the police evidence against Godber; and it seemed to me, at that stage, that hearings in open court might well prejudice further police. investigations. Therefore, the Commission did not record any evidence "in open court".

Witnesses:

The following 26 witnesses gave evidence before the Commission on 21st, 22nd, 25th and 26th June 1973:-

Legal Department

The Hon. John William Dixon Hobley

Ross Grange Penlington

Royal Hong Kong Police Force

Charles Payne Sutcliff e

Christopher John Rowland Dawson

Robert Thomas Mitchell Henry

James Joseph Edward brrin

Alistair Bain McNutt

Robert James Irvine

Peter John Webb

Edmund Paul Grace

Acting Attorney General

Assistant to the Attorney General (Anti-Corruption)

Commissioner

Deputy Commissioner (Operations)

Senior Assistant Commissioner (Director of Operations)

Acting Assistant Commissioner (Director, Anti-Corruption Office)

Senior Superintendent

(Assistant Director of

Anti-Corruption Office)

Superintendent (Anti- Corruption Office)

Superintendent (Anti- Corruption Office)

Acting Senior Assistant Commissioner (District Commander, Kowloon)

Page 15Page 16