10. That lack of confidence in the honesty and integrity of the Police (including the A.C. Office) is the reason for the poor response of the public; and that people would come forward with information to a new law-enforcement agency which was independent of the police.
In paragraph 218 above, I have quoted a passage from the 6th report of the Advisory Com- mittee from which it can be seen that despite numerous appeals to the public to come forward with information during a period of 11 months in 1961, the Anti-Corruption Branch received 14 times as many complaints as the Advisory Committee! [In the one case 422; in the other 28]. Apart from members of official bodies, heads of departments, a few members of the legal profession, Mr. BARRYMAINE and Mrs. ELLIOTT, I have received no assistance from the public. It is simply "anyone's guess" as to whether the public would or would not furnish more information to any new agency. Apart from the fact that many people say they believe that this will happen, I have no information on which to form an opinion either way.
11. That corruption is widespread in Hong Kong, including the public service, and is particularly widespread in the Police, including the A.C. Office itself; that corrupt officers cannot be expected to investigate with impartiality, honesty, zeal and diligence, allegations of corruption against any person, whether such person is in the public service or not.
12. That the mere fact that it is widely believed that the Police (including the A.C. Office) are corrupt, that mutual loyalty inhibits investigation of fellow-officers, etc. constitutes sufficient reason to take the Office out of Police hands, quite irrespective of how much truth there is in these allegations; that Government should respect public opinion irrespective of the evidence in support of that opinion, and that the formation of a new agency would demonstrate Government's determination to fight corruption and thereby enlist public support.
The case for separation is really summed-up in arguments 11 and 12 above.
232. Arguments against separation.
1.
2.
3.
Corruption is a crime; and the investigation of crime is the task of officers trained in investigation work with court proceedings in mind. The investigation of crime is not within the province of lawyers and others.
This is a powerful argument. True, officers of the Preventive Service, Labour, Fire Services, and other departments prosecute in our courts; but it is mostly for obvious infringements of the law which do not call for criminal investigation in any real sense. Good criminal investigators are not produced in a day. Young police officers, fresh out of Training School, make many mistakes; and in court they frequently find themselves being made to look very foolish when under cross-examination by defence lawyers. It takes years of experience to become a good criminal investigator as every judge, magistrate and police officer well knows. The Commissioner of Police has written to the Commission as follows:
"All bribery offences are relatively complicated and their successful investigation requires the application of a high degree of professional skill, specialized training, experience, local knowledge, backed up by research, adequate records and substantial resources in men and equipment. Anti-corruption work involves a considerable degree of intelligence-gathering. Indeed, where corruption arises from connivance at illegal activities and those involved are unlikely to complain, detailed knowledge of the corrupt practices can only be acquired by gathering intelligence over a long period, evaluating it and exploiting it so as to obtain further information. This aspect of anti-corruption work is akin to that of the Special Branch or certain specialist units of the C.I.D. and it is essential that a proportion of the officers engaged in work of this nature should have had experience in these formations. . . intelligence gathering ... shows where administrative measures can be taken to reduce opportunities for future corruption."
There is no source of trained investigators in Hong Kong outside the Royal Hong Kong Police Force.
So far as I am aware, there is no other source of trained investigators in Hong Kong.
It is unlikely that police officers of ability would wish to transfer to an anti-corruption bureau in- dependent of the Police because such a bureau would offer very limited career prospects. It is likely that any officers who would be willing to transfer from the Police Force would be officers of limited ability with little prospects of promotion in the Force.
This argument was put forward by the then Commissioner of Police in 1969 and is adopted by the present Commissioner. I am not in a position to comment either way. It would have
49
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.