TNAG-0405-FCO40-451-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 50

-37-

suspicion and assuming (incorrectly as it turns out) that Godber was under surveillance, he decided to do nothing.

In

I cannot but feel that rs. Godber's hasty departure

must have aroused some degree of suspicion in 'r. Lloyd. Further- more, under close questioning he frankly admitted to me that, during the several hours he spent with Godber on the evenings of 6th and 7th June, Godber said nothing which caused him to think that he (Godber) would be able to explain his wealth to the satisfaction of the Attorney General. I suppose most of us hope that we shall never be placed in the position Ir. Lloyd found himself in during those 2 days. But police officers are under a very heavy duty to do everything in their power to see to it that persons suspected of crime are brought to justice. discharging this onerous duty they may well find themselves compelled to act in ways prejudicial to their closest friends.

There was Mrs. Godber's hasty departure, Godber's

irrelevant talk about the anti-bribery legislation and the

Attorney General's letter, and his failure to say anything to

indicate that he had acquired his wealth by lawful means.

If,

in all the circumstances, ir. Lloyd was suspicious, he ought to

have informed Ir. Dawson of his suspicions at least that

Irs. Godber had left the Colony; that the decision that she

should leave was hurriedly taken; and that she left unwillingly

and at her husband's insistence.

It may well be asked: If surveillance was so impracticable,

why was Godber not asked to report, say, every 4 hours between

7 a.m. and 11 p.m.? Godber had not committed any offence; but,

putting it at its lowest, he was a suspect. The police are a

disciplined service. Without interdiction, Godber could not,

reasonably, have refused to obey an order of this kind. Reporting

by telephone would not have been sufficient. Voice sounds can be

imitated. But, if it was too much to ask Godber to report in

person at some designated place every 4 hours, surely he could

have been asked if he would consent to a named police officer

contacting him in person every 4 hours - indeed every 2 or 3 hours.

Of course, he was under no obligation to consent. He might even