TNAG-0408-FCO40-454-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 87

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference

be

бен стел rehvid of any tomme by the Goo. wonder the Ponents

never

6.

a

When these regulations were amended in 1970 they were regarded, particularly Colonial Regulation 59,

For as fulfilling Sir D Trench's requirements. instance it was stated at the time that if there was risk that charges preferred either in a criminal court or in a disciplinary tribunal would fail then it would be open to the Governor in any case to consider the alternative of compulsory retirement under Colonial Regulation No. 59. It was also thought it would be proper to invoke this provision in the case of an officer who, although acquitted on a criminal or disciplinary charge had, by his own conduct, brought himself into such ill repute that he could no longer be regarded as a useful officer.

7.

Sir Alistair Blair-Kerr in his second report recommends that Colonial Regulation No. 59 should be revoked in toto (he also recommends a consequential

His reason is amendment to the Pensions Ordinance). that experience has shown that any attempt to use Colonial Regulation No. 59 to retire an officer after he has been acquitted of a criminal charge leads to difficulties. Blair-Kerr also recommends that Colonial Regulations 61 and 62 should be revoked so that disciplinary proceedings may be instituted irrespective of whether criminal proceedings are in contemplation and despite the fact that the officer may have been acquitted by a Criminal Court.

8.

Mr Roberts also brought up this point at a meeting in the FCO on 13 August 1969 when he was told that the FCO would be opposed to such a change and the point was made that the Prevention of Bribery Bill contained some pretty draconian provisions so far as the civil service was concerned.

9. It would seem that the Governor could act to retire officers in the public interest under the existing Colonial Regulations. He may however wish to cut down the procedure involved. Colonial Regulation No. 66 requires that the prior approval of the Secretary of State is required for the dismissal of any officer whose appointment was subject to his approval or his pensionable emoluments exceed a certain amount.

10. Perhaps the real point in the Governor's enquiry is the phrase "on grounds that would satisfy the Secretary of State." What evidence, and what degree of proof would the Legal Advisers accept before advising the Secretary to agree to dismissal?

11.

There is a further point; the changes in Regulations in 1970 were agreed to by the three Staff Associations in Hong Kong. They may not be agreeable (if consulted) to further amendment of the Regulations.

13 September 1973

CONFIDENTIAL

P M Kelly (Miss)

Hong Kong and Indian Ocean Department

DD 145177 219242 GOOM 4,73 GM 3643:2