TNAG-0405-FCO40-451-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 20

(SAGNET

Mr. Sutcliffe and Mr. Dawson had been kept fully

informed of the day-to-day progress of the investigations; and on 21st May they decided that Godber should be transferred from his position as 2nd-in-command in Kowloon to the Operations

Wing at Police Headquarters where he would be working directly

under Mr. Dawson himself. The ostensible reason given to Godber

was that the Commissioner required an experienced officer to

deal with certain aspects of the Fight Violent Crime Campaign.

Mr. Penlington and the officers of the Anti-Corruption

Office considered whether there would be any value in issuing

a notice to Godber under section 14 of the Ordinance. Broadly,

this section enables the Attorney General to require any person

who is suspected of having committed an offence to submit a comprehensive statement disclosing all property of every description

owned by him, solely or jointly with others, over a given period,

and generally as to his family expenditure and liabilities and so

Further information from the banks was coming in; and on

31st Lay the case file was presented to the Acting Attorney General,

Mr. Hobley. By 1st June, it appeared that the total amount which

had passed through Godber's hands was in excess of Kl million,

although the police had not had an opportunity to verify certain

of his overseas remittances. Mr. Penlington discussed with the

Acting Attorney General the pros and cons of proceeding, in the

first instance, under section 14 of the Ordinance, or directly

under section 10.

on.

Section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, SO

far as relevant, reads as follows:-

"10(1) Any person who, being or having been a

Crown servant

(a) maintains a standard of living

above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments; or

(b) is in control of pecuniary resources

or property disproportionate to

his present or past official emoluments,

shall, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such pocuniary resources or property came under his control, be guilty of an offence.