TNAG-0405-FCO40-451-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 39

- 26

convictions in the courts on ordinary ocrruption charges.

that is perhaps understandable.

persons

-

And

A corrupt bargain involves two

The receiver is

the "giver" and the "receiver". usually the public servant; and, normally, efforts are made to bring him to justice. But to obtain a conviction, the prosecution

must satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the person

accused is guilty.

Even if the "giver" is willing to testify (which is

seldom) he is usually a satisfied party and, consequently, an unwilling witness. But worse. In the process of giving, he too

commits a criminal offence. He is what is known to lawyers as

"an accomplice". No matter how one legislates for a situation of this kind, the normal human being (he be juryman or judge) of necessity views with suspicion the tainted evidence of a man who, for all the court knows, may be buying his immunity (or at least believes that he may be doing so) in consideration

of his advancing the prosecution case against his accomplice.

A clever defence lawyer can usually make a prosecution witness

of this class look rather silly.

Of course, the prosecution may adopt other means of bringing offenders to justice, such as adducing evidence of police traps, marked money, statements by the accused in the nature of a confession (another favourite field for attack

by defence lawyers), and so on. But, experience has shown that,

for one reason or another, it is very difficult in Hong Kong to bring home guilt to a corrupt Government servant.

The history of what is now section 10 of the Ordinance.

goes back many years. I remember in the early 1950's, it was suggested that, as regards a Government servant, proof of the

fact that he was maintaining an unduly high standard of living

or that he was in control of excessive pecuniary resources,

should be sufficient for him to be called upon for an explanation.

In those days, no one was brave enough to suggest that a provision

of that sort should be written into the criminal law. But it was

agreed that it should be made a disciplinary offence which, if

proved, could result in dismissal from the public service with

loss of pension rights. And so, Establishment Regulation 444 was

introduced in much the same form as it is today.