TNAG-0409-FCO40-455-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 156

9.

Certainly, the GODBER case lends no support whatsoever to the argument. The investigation was not carried out at inspectorate level, but by officers of senior superintendent rank under the direct supervision of the Director [an Assistant Commissioner] who in turn was working under the watchful eye of the Deputy Commissioner (Mr. Dawson).

That the Anti-Corruption Office is ineffective and has not made full use of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance; that the quality of the staff as regards education, ability and experience is low.

Taking the latter half of this argument first: The investigation of corruption cases is difficult work, perhaps more difficult than other C.I.D. work; and, indeed, I recommend that the A.C. Office (or any new agency) should be in a position to call in experts to advise on technical matters. Policemen are not experts in accountancy, motor mechanics, etc. It would not be necessary to have a great number of experts attached to the Office (or other agency) on a full-time basis, provided the investigators were in a position to call upon accountants, engineers, etc. to assist in the inquiries. The Accountant General, failing which a firm of civilian accountants, might be engaged to assist in cases involving matters of accountancy; and so on.

But, leaving expert knowledge aside, I have no reason to think that the officers of the Anti- Corruption Office are inferior policemen. Those I have come in contact with appear to be able investigators. The staff move every 2 years or so; and the Office is manned by officers with a number of years of C.I.D. and Special Branch experience.

As regards the first part of argument no. 9, it is quite true that the figures for 1971, 1972, and the first part of 1973 (paragraph 73 above) do not indicate that there has been any break-through in the fight against corruption. I have indicated earlier in this report (paragraphs 145-147 and 156- 159) that, out of fear that there might be public criticism that the Office was engaging in witch- hunts, the Attorney General's Assistants have, with the greatest respect to them, acted on a number of occasions over-cautiously. Indeed, I was told that police officers sometimes felt frustrated because they were unable to obtain authorizations and search warrants. In this connection, I notice that in their annual report to the Governor for 1971, the Target Committee say (paragraph 18):-

66

the Attorney General has ruled that (section 10) may only be used when there is insufficient evidence to support a charge under one of the more orthodox sections of the Ordinance. However, the ruling means that, in practice, section 10 is less of a powerful weapon than the Target Committee had hoped."

I have inquired about this so-called ruling of the Attorney General. There is nothing in writing; and, whatever the Attorney General did say, it appears to have been misunderstood. To take it at its face value would have been ridiculous. Take a purely hypothetical case. Assuming the police found that a Crown servant was in control of $3 million. There may be no evidence what- soever to support a charge under section 3 or section 4(2) of the Ordinance. But supposing the A.C. Office found evidence to support, say, the corrupt receipt of $100 on one single occasion, it would be quite ridiculous to prefer a charge under section 3 in respect of the receipt of this small sum [maximum punishment on conviction: 1 year] and to ignore the fact that the Crown servant is in control of $3 million control of which called for an explanation under section 10 [maximum punishment on conviction: 7 years]. It does appear that the misunderstanding may have had an inhibitory effect as regards the investigation of possible section 10 cases.

Apropos of the argument that the A.C. Office has been "ineffective", there are other matters which should be borne in mind. Firstly, it is not possible to give publicity to the long-term in- vestigations carried out by "A" Division. It is the successful prosecutions presented to the courts by "B" and "C" Divisions which are publicised. Secondly, investigations carried out by the Office have resulted in a considerable number of officers resigning. I do not think it is desirable that I should elaborate on how this came about, except to say that it involved a great deal of hard work on the part of the A.C. Office, and the fact that these undoubtedly corrupt men were not brought to trial was not the fault of the Office, but the “old-story”: insufficient evidence to satisfy the high standards demanded by a criminal court.

But, when all is said and done, I feel that this argument that the A.C. Office is "ineffective” is simply a polite way of saying that the Office (as well as the rest of the Force) is corrupt from end to end and that one corrupt police officer will not diligently investigate alleged corruption on the part of another police officer-irrespective of the latter's rank.

48

"