probability, would be arrested on 11th June, was at liberty for a whole week. He knew that the police had a strong case against him. He had every incentive to leave Hong Kong. In all probability, he would not go leaving his wife behind; but once she left, GODBER had everything to gain and nothing to lose by attempting to follow her.
The effect which knowledge of her departure would have produced on police thinking is illustrated by Mr. DAWSON's evidence. He frankly admitted that, if he had been told that Mrs. GODBER had left Hong Kong on 7th June, this would have had a very considerable effect on him, and that he might well have taken some further action.
This was said in relation to the situation in which the LLOYDS found themselves on 6th and 7th June. Mr. DAWSON said in evidence that it was Mr. LLOYD's duty to have informed him or Mr. MORRIN as soon as he knew that Mrs. GODBER was going to leave Hong Kong. What I found so suspicious about Mrs. GODBER's departure was the speed with which the GODBERS made up their minds that she must leave Hong Kong at once. After all, they were, from all accounts, a devoted couple. The packing of their household effects was only half completed. At the worst, he could not have been arrested before 11th June. Would any normal wife not have felt compelled to remain beside her husband to comfort him in his hour of need? Even if the disgrace of his arrest was going to prove too much for her, why not leave Hong Kong on, say, the 12th June thereby having at least a few more days with her husband and having the opportunity to complete the packing of their household effects?
When questioned by the Commission, the LLOYDS saw nothing in this approach. They saw nothing suspicious in Mrs. GODBER leaving, and leaving in such a hurry. It appears also that although GODBER, during the search of his premises on 4th June, had talked to his solicitor about resigning from the service [not retiring-Mr. GUNSTON was quite certain that GODBER used the word "resign"] and although he had asked Mr. GUNSTON for his advice as to the effect of the Fugitive Offenders Act, according to the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. LLOYD, GODBER said nothing to them which gave either of them any idea that he was about to leave Hong Kong.
There is nothing in GODBER's letter of 10th June to Mr. LLOYD (“H” attached) which throws a different light on this aspect of the matter; and I am inclined to think that although Mr. LLOYD may have had his suspicions that GODBER might leave Hong Kong before 11th June, GODBER never actually said to his friend in so many words that this was his intention. If he had done so, Mr. LLOYD's clear duty to the Force and to the public would have been to inform his superiors immediately. His public duty came before personal friendship; and GODBER, as an experienced police officer, must have realised all that. He would never have placed his friend in such an intolerable position.
If, however, Mr. LLOYD was merely vaguely suspicious, was he duty-bound to communicate his suspicious to his superiors in the Force? Mr. LLOYD said that he never for one moment thought that GODBER was not under surveillance and that no matter what GODBER did, his movements would be observed by members of the police. It would appear therefore that finding himself in a most embarrassing situation having to balance his personal friendship with GODBER against what probably did not amount to more than a suspicion and assuming (incorrectly as it turns out) that GODBER was under surveillance, he decided to do nothing.
I cannot but feel that Mrs. GODBER's hasty departure must have aroused some degree of suspicion in Mr. 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 Mr. 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. In 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, Mr. LLOYD was suspicious, he ought to have informed Mr. DAWSON of his suspicions—at least that Mrs. 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 have objected. But, at least, the reasonableness, or otherwise, of his failure to consent, or his objection, could then have been assessed with a
16
Page 45Page 46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.