Mr. GODBER is accused of an offence under section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. Therefore, it satisfies the condition in paragraph (b) of section 3(1). But it does not satisfy the condition in paragraph (c). There is no offence equivalent to our section 10 of Cap. 201 in the law of England. Indeed, I do not think that there is any English equivalent to our section 3; and there might even be arguments as to whether the "acts" described in some of the other sections in Part II of the Ordinance have any true equivalent in the law of England.
214. The present position is most unsatisfactory. There may, or may not, be very sound reasons for having paragraph (c) in the case of certain designated Commonwealth countries over which the United Kingdom has no control as regards the enactment of legislation creating new offences, or indeed governing by edict. But, I am quite unable to understand why this provision was made to apply to a Colony like Hong Kong. In this dependent territory we live under the rule of law; and Her Majesty the Queen has the power to disallow any new legislation which She may consider not to be for the "peace order and good government” of the Colony. She did not exercise Her power of disallowance in the case of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
215. I suggest, therefore, that serious consideration be given to making representations to the Secretary of State that paragraph (c) of section 3(1) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 be amended so as to make it apply only to offences against the law of designated Commonwealth countries; alternatively, that a proviso be added to the effect that it shall not apply to offences contained in Colonial legislation in respect of which Her Majesty has not exercised Her power of disallowance; alternatively that it be declared that paragraph (c) shall not apply to Hong Kong.
216. I also see no reason why such an amendment should not be made retrospective. That would not be legislating so as to create a new offence and making it retrospective. Section 10 has been on our statute book for 24 years; and I can see no objection to amending section 3 of the Act with retrospective effect back to 1967. That, of course, would enable steps to be taken for the return of Mr. Godber. But, whether or not it is made retrospective, it is very important that the Fugitive Offenders Act be amended so that persons fleeing to the United Kingdom may be returned to Hong Kong to be tried by our courts.
217. This, of course, would not solve the problem arising in cases where a fugitive flees to foreign countries. The position would be governed by the Extradition Acts which are based on the principle of reciprocity. Britain does have an extradition treaty with Portugal; but it would appear that there is no reciprocity as regards the bribery and corruption offences in Part II of our Ordinance. We do not even have any extradition arragements with Taiwan. It is exasperating to think that a corrupt officer would be able to escape to, say, Macau or Taiwan and the Hong Kong authorities would be powerless to bring him back to Hong Kong for trial.
Should the Anti-Corruption Office remain part of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force?
218. As far as I have been able to ascertain, this question was first considered by the Advisory Committee and dealt with by them in their 6th report dated 29th December 1961. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:--
"30. There was a strong feeling among those who were heard by the Working Party on Public Co-operation that the Anti-Corruption Branch should not be a part of the Police Force. It was stated that the public are reluctant to complain to the Police of whom they are afraid and there was danger in using police staff in the Branch because they can put the techniques and knowledge which they so acquire to bad use when, as frequently happens, they are posted to other branches of the Force. We consider a further justification for this view is that nearly 50% of all complaints about corruption concern the Police Force itself. We have studied a report made by Mr. G. A. R. WRIGHT-NOOTH ON his visit in 1954 to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, Singapore, which is divorced from the Police Force and is directly responsible to the Colonial Secretary. Civilian investigators are used who at the time of Mr. WRIGHT-NOOTH'S visit were insufficiently trained to carry out proper investiga- tions. This could be remedied. But there is also the danger that civilians permanently employed in such work would themselves become corrupted in which case the opportunity to post them to other duties and the discipline to deal with them effectively would be lacking. We have therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Anti-Corruption Branch must continue to be staffed by serving members of the Police Force and must remain under the authority of the Commissioner of Police. While there is evidence that in recent years the public have become more willing to approach the police with general problems or complaints, we feel that, partly through fear and partly because the police themselves are felt to be corrupt, there still exists in the minds of the public a definite reluctance to become involved with the police in relation to complaints of corruption. On the other hand, the public does not appear to be any more willing to complain to a civilian body; between 1st January 1961 and 30th November
42
Page 150Page 151
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.