under Cap. 201 and the former Cap. 215 and prosecutions for other criminal offences. These figures do not show the number of charges brought; and, in a number of instances, an examination of files showed that several persons had been charged jointly and in other instances that one person was charged with a number of separate charges. A further factor is that the figures given by the Target Committee relate to prosecutions of persons before the courts in the particular year under review in which the court had given its decision. Examination of the files showed that, in a number of instances, persons were charged in one calendar year but their cases were not disposed of by the courts until the following calendar year.
77. But, however one looks at the matter, there are no signs, so far, that there has been any spectacular break-through in the battle against corruption, despite the additional powers conferred by Cap. 201.
78. Since the Ordinance came into force in May 1971 no persons have been charged under sections 5, 6 or 7 of the Ordinance. Four persons have been "targets" for possible prosecution under section 10. The Attorney General issued letters in 2 cases under the recently repealed subsection (2) of section 10. One was the case of Chief Superintendent Godber and the other involved a relatively junior government officer. The Attorney General addressed 2 letters to this man under the repealed section 10(2) and finally accepted the officer's explanation. In the course of this investigation the Attorney General's Assistant issued one bank authorization under section 13(1) of the Ordinance. Prior to the service of the section 10(2) letter on Godber, the Attorney General's Assistant had issued a bank authorization under section 13.
79. Section 13 authorizations have also been utilized in 8 other cases in which 2 persons were subsequently convicted, 2 persons resigned while still under enquiry, and one case where the officer's contract was terminated as a result of the investigations. Two further cases are still under investigation; and in one case no charge could be brought because of a defect in section 10. This case is referred to in paragraph 123 below.
80. The provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance were first used in February 1973 when Superintendent Hunt and his wife received letters from the Attorney General. Letters under this section have been served on 7 occasions in connection with an investigation which is taking place at the time of writing this report.
81. The special powers to search premises under section 17 have been used by the Director on 12 different occasions but in one instance it was not necessary to execute the warrant as the suspect gave permission to search his premises. The 12 warrants related to 3 separate cases. One case involved 8 persons. It came to light as a result of a long-term investigation into a passport and illegal-immigrant racket in which no prosecu- tions resulted because of difficulties in disclosure of evidence obtained from under-cover sources but which did result in the breaking of this particular ring of racketeers and the sudden resignation of a number of junior government employees. The second case in which the Director issued 2 warrants under section 17 arose from another long-term investigation. In that case the homes of a member of the public and a police constable were searched. This long-term investigation is still continuing but to date no persons have been prosecuted; but the constable has deserted from the force. The third case was one of those referred to in paragraph 79 above where an officer under investigation resigned before the enquiry could be completed. In a number of instances the Attorney General's Assistant was not prepared to authorize the issue of warrants; and the Director issued them himself. The Attorney General's Assistant has issued a total of 6 search warrants in connection with the GODBER and other section 10 cases. In a number of other cases, the Commission was informed, search warrants have been obtained from magistrates under the provisions of section 50 of the Police Force Ordinance. The Anti-Corruption Office does not keep separate figures on this class of warrant, the duplicates of which are kept on individual case files.
82. Reverting to the statistics for 1971 and 1972 given in paragraph 73 above, in 1971 the cases against 59 officers for suspected corruption were referred by the A.C. Office to other authorities for possible disciplinary action. Presently, I shall be dealing with the existing arrangements on the disciplinary side and I will be making certain recommendations; but at this stage, it may be observed that from an examination of the files of the Establishment Secretary, it appears that during the year 1971, only 1 officer was dismissed as a result of dis- ciplinary action and the services of 1 other officer were terminated. As regards 1972, the A.C. Office referred 91 officers for possible disciplinary action. Only 4 officers were in fact dismissed by disciplinary action during that year.
83. These, then, are the existing arrangements as regards the enforcement of the law against bribery and corruption; and I have given such information as I have been able to obtain as regards the working of the new Ordinance (Cap. 201) during the 2 years or so of its existence.
84. As I have said, this Ordinance is a more powerful weapon than its predecessor; but when compared with the original draft Bill, it is obvious that it had quite a few of its "teeth" drawn before it went on the statute book. Before deciding whether those "teeth” should be put back into the Ordinance I think it is necessary to ask oneself, and try to answer, 3 questions:
19
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.