TNAG-0409-FCO40-455-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 142

I entirely agree with this recommendation; and adopt it as my own at any rate so far as the trial of bribery cases under Cap. 201 is concerned. Whether or not the legislature ever enacts a provision to this effect which would apply generally to the trial of all offences matters not. I make no apology for recommending the enactment of special provisions as regards the trial of bribery cases.

Section 30

166. The 1968 Working Party recommended a section reading as follows:-

"Any person who, without lawful authority, discloses to another either the identity of any person who is the subject of an investigation under this Ordinance or any details of such investigation, shall be guilty of an offence..."

It was felt that, if the suspect were alerted, he could frustrate the investigation. The draftsman of the Ordinance obviously felt that a suspect could be alerted not only by disclosure to the suspect himself but also by disclosure to some other person who in turn would make disclosure to the suspect. And so, he added the words

“... or discloses to any other person either the identity of any person who is the subject of such an

investigation or any details of such an investigation..."

But when a section 14 letter has been received by a suspect or when his house has been searched (section 17), he has been alerted; and it is pointless for everyone to go on maintaining silence after that. In GODBER's case,

there was no point in maintaining silence after 4th June. Indeed, it probably played a part in facilitating his departure from Hong Kong. If, through the news media, the public had been informed of the section 10 letter and the fact that his flat had been searched, many people (including police officers) might have observed GODBER'S movements more closely.

167. It may not be possible to amend the section; but the practical objections to it as it stands might be overcome by the Anti-Corruption Office asking the Government Information Services to give the press "lawful authority" after a certain point in the investigation. After all, the offence is disclosure "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse."

Disciplinary Procedure-current arrangements

168. As I said at the beginning of this report, I assume that the expression "current arrangements" in my terms of reference oblige me to consider the regulations governing matters of internal discipline in the public service. I now proceed to do so.

Officers on the Pensionable Establishment

169. Colonial Regulations 54-66 [ a copy of which is annexure “G” to this report] were re-drafted in May 1971. They apply to all officers confirmed to the pensionable establishment and govern the manner in which such officers may be punished for disciplinary offences.

170. Colonial Regulation 55 states the general principle governing employment under the Crown, namely that an officer holds office subject to the pleasure of the Crown. If the pleasure of the Crown is that he shall cease to hold office, such pleasure may be signified by the Secretary of State. The Crown is not required to give reasons for terminating the services of an officer in this way; and no prior formalities are necessary. In practice, however, a convention has grown up whereby this regulation is invoked only in cases of espionage and other types of disloyalty.

171. If the Governor is of the opinion that the misconduct alleged may be serious enough to warrant dismissal, he orders an investigation under C.R.57. Such an investigation is carried out in accordance with the Disciplinary Proceedings (Colonial) Regulations [annexure "H" to this report] and general directions by the Governor [annexure "I" to this report].

172. Under C.R.58, if an officer has been convicted of a criminal charge, the Governor, upon a consideration of the court proceedings, may dismiss the officer without ordering any further investigation.

173. It appears, therefore, that an officer may be dismissed:

(i) under C.R.55;

(ii) under C.R.57-after an investigation which establishes serious misconduct; and (iii) under C.R.58-following conviction for a criminal offence.

However, the Governor is not permitted to punish officers without first consulting the Public Services Com- mission [C.R.65]; and if the officer

34

24