TNAG-0408-FCO40-454-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 64

CONFIDENTIAL

5. REGULATION 61: THE PRINCIPLE OF SUB JUDICE IS WELL ESTABLISHED AND WE WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO ABANDON IT. THERE WOULD ANYWAY BE LITTLE POINT IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS ONCE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS HAD BEGUN, PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT YOU COULD STILL GET RID OF THE MA EVEN IF HE WAS ACQUITTED. WE WOULD THEREFORE PREFER TO RETAIN THIS REGULATION UNLESS YOU THINK IT ESSENTIAL FOR COSMETIC REASONS TO TAKE ACTION.ON AS MUCH OF THE BLAIR-KERR REPORT AS POSSIBLE. IF SO WE COULD RECONSIDER. YOU WOULD PROBABLY FOLLOW THE SUBSTANCE OF

THE REGULATION ANYWAY.

.6.

REGULATION 62: THE REPORT'S ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE NEED TO GET RID OF A MAN AGAINST WHOM A CRIMINAL CHARGE CANNOT BE PROVED. BUT WHAT THIS REGULATION PREVENTS IS ''PUNISMENT''. YOU CAN STILL

#

GET RID OF HIM UNDER REGULATION 55 (PROBABLY, BUT SEE BELOW),

OR UNDER REGULATION 50 WHICH EXPLICITLY DOES NOT INVOLVE

"PURI SHMENT'' THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL RESULT OF REVOKING

*

REGULATION 62 IS THAT YOU AFTER. AN ACQUITTAL YOU COULD STILL TAKE ACTION UNDER REGULATION 57. BUT THE PROCEDURE FOR THIS IS COMPLICATED

AND INAPPROPRIATE IF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE CANNOT BE REVEALED, SINCE THE OFFICER HAS TO KNOW ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. MOREOVER AN OFFICER PUNISHED IN THIS WAY AFTER AN ACQUITTAL, BY A COURT OF LAW WOULD HAVE VERY STRONG GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL TO ME. THE REPORT MAKES THIS POINT IN RELATION TO REGULATION 59 (PARA 202).

IT IS EVEN MORE APPLICABLE TO REGULATION 57.

REGULATION 57 HAS THE ADVANTAGE THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF A PENSION, BUT EVEN IN THE CASE OF REGULATION 59 A PENSION IS NOT MANDATORY (SEE REGULATION 59 (4)). FOR ALL THESE REASONS WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO REVOKE REGULATION 62, WHICH DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A REAL OBSTACLE TO THE REFORMS YOU REQUIRE.

7. REGULATION 59: THE REPORT FINDS THIS CLUMSY AND PREFERS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PENSIONS ORDINANCE. BUT WE SEE ADVANTAGE IN SOME FORMAL PROCEDURE WHERE IT CAN BE USED. IF, AS SUGGESTED TO YOU BY SIR R MARK, 9 OUT OF 10 CORRUPT OFFICERS ARE PREPARED TO GO QUIETLY, THEN THERE WOULD BE GREAT ADVANTAGE IN THE USE OF REGULATION 59 PROCEDURE, WHICE WAS REDRAFTED AT YOUR SPECIFIC REQUEST

IF THE OFFICER MAKES A FUSS AND ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM CANNOT BE REVEALED, THEN THERE IS STILL REGULATION 55 IN THE BACKGROUND (THOUGH WE SHOULD NEED TO CONSIDER IN RELEVANT CASES WHETHER THIS INVOLVED ''PUNISHMENT*'). WE CONSIDER THAT REGLATION 55 COULD IN ANY CASE PROPERLY BE USED IN CASES WHERE SOLID PROOF OF AN OFFICERS' CORRUPTION EXISTS IN THE FORM OF EVIDENCE WHICH,

-2- CONFIDENTIAL

/E.G. FOR