informed Mr. MORRIN that he would appear for the prosecution before the magistrate and oppose bail; and that the intention was that on 14th June the case would be transferred to the District Court for trial.
(5) GODBER's departure from Hong Kong was made easier by the following:-
(a) the 7 days delay in effecting his arrest because the Attorney General was forced to give him a reasonable opportunity to make representations regarding his pecuniary resources. [Section 10(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance].
(b) Failure on the part of all concerned with the investigation to appreciate fully the likelihood
that GODBER would attempt to depart from Hong Kong before 11th June 1973.
(c) Consequently, failure to seek the Governor's decision in regard to GODBER's interdiction which
would have resulted in GODBER surrendering his police warrant card.
(d) Lack of liaison inside the Royal Hong Kong Police Force which resulted in GODBER being permitted to retain his Civil Aviation Permit which conferred on him the unrestricted right to cross the land/air barrier and gave him access to all parts of Kai Tak Airport. This lack of liaison is to some extent, understandable in view of the inhibiting effect of section 30 of the Ordinance. No one connected with the Anti-Corruption investigation knew that he was in possession of such a valuable permit. No one unconnected with the Anti-Corruption investiga- tion had any idea of the police case against GODBER. In particular they could not possibly have appreciated that because of section 10(2) of the Ordinance, after 4th June GODBER knew the full strength of the police case against him and had every reason to try to leave Hong Kong before 11th June. In any event, the practice in regard to the issue and cancellation of these permits has been loose. The Commissioner of Police has now issued instructions that no mem- ber of the Force will be in possession of such a permit except when on duty. (e) failure to ask GODBER if he would agree to surrender his passport.
(f) failure to put GODBER and Mrs. GODBER on any kind of surveillance. The police view was that surveillance would be ineffective. Therefore they made no attempt at all to keep an eye on GODBER'S or Mrs. GODBER's movements.
(g) failure to order GODBER to report to the police regularly at suitable intervals. Alternatively,
to agree to a named police officer making personal contact with him at suitable intervals.
(h) poor standard of police security at the land/air barrier at the Airport.
(i) the failure of everyone who was aware of Mrs. GODBER's departure to appreciate the significance
of this fact and to inform Mr. DAWSON at once.
The facts are not really in dispute; and I have set them out as fully as I can. The public will no doubt draw their own inferences. Indeed, as I have said, before this inquiry began, views were expressed in certain news media that GODBER's departure from Hong Kong was "fixed". I have already said that there was not a scrap of evidence to suggest that any person assisted GODBER to leave Hong Kong by any positive act. Indeed all the evidence indicates that he did not seek, nor was he given, nor did he need, any active assistance. But I suppose the sugges- tion is that, in a negative way, he was assisted by the very fact that the authorities failed to take any of the measures which, looking at the matter in retrospect, I have suggested could, and should, have been taken; and that this was all a deliberate plan involving the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the officers of the Anti-Corruption Office, the Commander, Kowloon District, the Div. Superintendent Kowloon City Division, the Attorney General and his assistant-or perhaps some of them.
I am totally unable to subscribe to this view. Never for a moment during this inquiry did I have any reason to doubt the honesty and integrity of these officers. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the intention was to arrest GODBER and bring him before the courts on 11th June.
The cause of this tragic mix-up was the failure on the part of all concerned with the investigation to appreciate fully the dangerous situation which was created by the fact that the Attorney General was forced by law to permit GODBER to retain his liberty for a period after he (GODBER) knew the full strength of the prosecution evidence and had every reason to make the most strenuous efforts to leave Hong Kong before 11th June. Even without his Civil Aviation Department "red" permit, a senior police officer of his ability might well have managed to achieve the same result by the use of his police warrant card. He might well, as Mr. Dawson says, have evaded surveil- lance; and I am inclined to agree with the Commissioner that nothing short of actual arrest on 4th June, and custody thereafter, would have been sufficient to ensure GODBER's continued presence in Hong Kong to await his trial; and that was the one thing the authorities were precluded from doing prior to 11th June because of section 10(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. After 11th June, the matter would, of course, have been the responsibility of the courts, if they chose to grant bail.
19
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.