TNAG-0406-FCO40-452-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 30

COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ORDINANCE CAP. 86

FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY APPOINTED ON 13TH JUNE 1973 BY THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 2 OF THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ORDINANCE CAP. 86

Attached to this report and marked “A” is a copy of the instrument appointing me Commissioner to inquire into the matters set out in paragraph 2 of the instrument, being, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, matters of public importance. Under section 2(2)(c) of the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, Mr. L. A. RICHARDSON was appointed Secretary to the Commission; and, under section 6(4), Mr. B. A. SCEATS, Assistant Principal Crown Counsel, having been nominated by the Attorney General, I appointed him counsel for the Commission.

I am required within 3 weeks (i.e. on or before 4th July 1973) to:---

"report on the circumstances in which a person, whose prosecution under the Prevention of Bribery

Ordinance was at an advanced stage of consideration, was able to leave Hong Kong.”

My inquiries have been directed primarily towards ascertaining the circumstances in which a police officer named Peter Fitzroy GODBER, whose prosecution for an offence under section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance was at an advanced stage of consideration, was able to leave Hong Kong.

No direction was given by the Governor in Council under section 3(e) of the Commissions of Inquiry Ordin- ance; but under paragraph (i) of section 4 I felt compelled to order that the holding of the inquiry, as regards this particular matter, would be in camera. My reasons for so doing were these: It was apparent to me that GODBER might well have to face a criminal prosecution. Inquiries under Cap. 86 are basically inquisitorial in character; and, under section 4(a), Commissioners may

"receive and consider any material whether by way of oral evidence, written statements, documents or otherwise, notwithstanding that such material would not be admissible as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings."

Before the commencement of the inquiry, I had no idea what material would be placed before me, or what I might feel compelled to call 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 Ordin- ance, 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 SUTCLIFFE Christopher John Rowland DAWSON Robert Thomas Mitchell HENRY James Joseph Edward MORRIN

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-Corrup- tion Office)

1

Page 30Page 31