TNAG-0406-FCO40-452-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 33

·

By 25th May, the police had also verified that GODBER had remitted Canadian $35,000 and by 29th May that he had remitted Singapore $4,000. According to Mr. PENLINGTON, looking at the police evidence as a whole towards the end of May, it appeared to him that over the last 5 years GODBER had either deposited in Hong Kong or remitted overseas approximately HK$650,000—which sum did not fall far short of his total official net income since coming to Hong Kong in 1952.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE and Mr. DAWSON had been kept fully informed of the day-to-day progress of the investiga- tions; 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 on. Further information from the banks was coming in; and on 31st May 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 HK$1 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.

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 pecuniary resources or property came under his control, be guilty of an offence.

(2) No prosecution for an offence under sub-section (1) shall be instituted without the consent in writing of the Attorney General, who shall, before consenting to the institution of a prosecution against a person for an offence, inform that person that a prosecution against him for such an offence is under consideration and give him an opportunity of making representations in writing to the Attorney General.

(3)

(4) Any representations in writing made by a person to the Attorney General under sub-section (2) shall not, without the consent of that person, be admissible in evidence in any proceedings against him for any offence."

There was no evidence that Mr. GODBER maintained a standard of living above that commensurate with his emoluments. Indeed, all the evidence pointed the other way, namely that he lived frugally, employing a part-time amah, did little entertaining, and had few friends. However, his apparent control of pecuniary resources was a different matter; and Mr. HOBLEY decided that there was no point in delaying matters any longer, and that a notice under section 10(2) would be issued forthwith. It was also decided that GODBER's quarters should be searched. Although the notice under section 10(2) was signed on 1st June it was dated 4th June; and the Acting Attorney General decided that GODBER would be given 7 days to "make representations". The notice read:

"Prevention of Bribery Ordinance

You are hereby informed that a prosecution against you for an offence under section 10(1)(b) of the above Ordinance is under consideration in that you appear to be in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to your present or past official emoluments.

2. In accordance with section 10(2) of the said Ordinance you are hereby given the opportunity of making representations to me.

3. Any such representations must be in writing and must reach me on or before the morning of the 11th June 1973.

Dated this 4th June 1973.

(Sgd.) J. W. D. HOBLEY, Acting Attorney General.”

4