most unlikely. The departure cards were collected, sorted and counted fairly quickly after the aircraft left. There- fore such an officer would have little time to destroy the card. Also, this was a busy time of the day. The officer would be far too preoccupied to re-check the cards.
There is one other possibility which cannot be discounted. Through both the departure and arrival Immigra- tion control points, there is a channel through which aircrews and airport officials pass. These are manned by Immigration officers. But they do not stop everyone to inspect their passes. Therefore, although GODBER'S name was added to their Watch Lists 4 days prior to his departure, the officers would not necessarily have connected GODBER with the entry on their lists. If they had seen a person wearing a "red" permit, such a person would not have been stopped.
In the time available to me (3 weeks), it has not been possible for me to call as witnesses the scores of Immigra- tion and police personnel on duty at Kai Tak at the relevant time. I am, however, greatly indebted to Super- intendent WEBB who assures me that he has closely questioned all Immigration officials and police constables on gate duty; and no one admits seeing GODBER on 8th June.
But, apart from that, naturally one asks oneself: why choose a difficult or risky way of crossing the land/air barrier when one has the option of an infinitely easier way of doing it, that is to say by walking past the constable on duty at the west gate wearing one's "red" permit?
What probably happened was this: GODBER checked in at approximately 1.45 p.m.-possibly a little later. The chances are that he did so personally and did not ask anyone to check in for him. He was, by nature, what is sometimes called a "loner". He was an able and efficient police officer. He would know that the fewer people who know about one's affairs, the less chance there is of anyone "splitting". He would run a slight risk of being recognised when standing in the queue at the check-in counter. In the process of checking in, he would have been given his boarding pass. He could then have walked down the stair on the west side of the building past the V.I.P. Room. By this time, he would have fixed his permit to his left breast pocket. He probably did not carry any hand baggage. The presence of hand baggage might possibly have aroused the suspicion of the constable at the west gate; but, according to the evidence, the absence of such baggage would not arouse the suspicions of the air hostesses checking the boarding passes. As I have said, everything points to the fact that, in all probability, GODBER was wearing his pass and walked through the west gate and up the ramp which leads straight into the transit/ departure lounge. He thereby evaded Immigration Control, and was able to board the aircraft with all the other passengers. Of course, this is all speculation as no one saw him. But, having examined the airport facilities very carefully in company with the Airport Manager, Mr. K. R. SMITH, I agree entirely with Superintendent WEBB that the route which I have described is the one which GODBER most probably took.
There is no doubt that he arrived in Singapore on flight SQ631 at about 6.30 p.m. on 8th June; and Superintendent WEBB's information is that he arrived at Heathrow Airport (London) from Europe on 9th June, that is to say he probably never left Singapore Airport, but purchased a ticket immediately on some flight to, say, Paris, Rome, Zurich or Frankfurt, changed planes there, and took an onward flight to London. The Hong Kong Police have not yet been able to get the actual flight number of the plane on which he arrived at Heathrow.
Could more have been done to prevent Godber leaving Hong Kong?
There have been suggestions in certain newspapers, and other news media, that some person or persons deliberately assisted GODBER to leave Hong Kong? Remarks such as: "The whole thing was fixed" have been heard during the past few weeks. All I can say is that no evidence has been adduced in support of these suggestions. I shall have something to say presently about the unsatisfactory state of the law. I shall also indicate that, looking at the matter in retrospect, I think that more could have been done towards reducing GODBER's opportunity to leave Hong Kong. But, so far as the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner, the officers of the Anti- Corruption Office, and the Attorney General and his assistant, are concerned, all the evidence points to the fact that one and all of them did their best to obtain sufficient evidence to bring GODBER to trial at the earliest op- portunity, and certainly before he was due to retire in July. Indeed, the time factor was one of the considerations which ruled out any question of their invoking section 14 of the Ordinance. And when one thinks about it, the suggestion of a conspiracy involving 2 or more of these police officers and lawyers is ridiculous. If the intention was to let GODBER go scot free, why did the Commissioner ever cause the investigation to be initiated in the first place? Why did he reject GODBER's request to advance the date of his retirement to 30th June? Why did Mr. DAWSON or Mr. MORRIN or some of his colleagues not simply delay matters for a few weeks? Why did someone not tip-off GODBER that his flat was about to be searched? That would have enabled him to destroy, or conceal, the greater part of the evidence in support of the police case against him. Clearly, he had not the faintest suspicion that his flat was going to be raided. He got the shock of his life when he was informed of this in Mr. DAWSON'S office on the morning of 4th June, and he fainted as a result. Why should those officers have gone to all the trouble of building up a strong case against GODBER, and then, deliberately, have done anything with a view to facilitating his escape, thereby subjecting themselves to public ridicule?
11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.