TNAG-0409-FCO40-455-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 163

Bail

partiality and zeal. UMELCO say that although this belief may not be justified- indeed may be very unfair to the police-no amount of assurance is likely to convince the public otherwise... Responsible bodies generally feel that the public will never be convinced that Government really intends to fight corruption unless the A.C. Office is separated from the Police. No doubt the GODBER case has caused a good deal of emotion and irrational thinking. But it is evident from the Advisory Committee's 6th report (para. 218 above) that the demand for separation is nothing new. It goes back over the last 12 years at least; and it is difficult to see how this demand can be resisted any longer provided the organizational problems involved can be solved. But for the reasons I have given I am not in a position to make a firm recommendation either way.”

If it is decided to form a new agency, I adopt UMELCO's recommendation that it be headed not by a police officer but by a person of wide administrative experience. If such a person happened to have legal qualifications, so much the better; but I would have thought that a person who has held high judicial office would not be the best type of head. Experience in Ceylon seems to support this view.

If it is decided to form a new agency, it should be responsible to the Attorney-General.

Prevention is better than cure; and in paragraph 240, I recommend that consideration be given to employing a Prevention of Corruption Officer on a full-time basis whose duties would be analogous to those of the Director of Audit, that is to say, to keep a constant check on depart- mental procedures to ensure that everything that is humanly possible is being done to reduce the opportunities for corruption in the public service.

I recommend that the Advisory Committee be now dissolved.

As regards the Target Committee, if it is decided that the A.C. Office remain as part of the Police Force, I can well understand that there might be difficulties in adopting Mr. STRATTON'S recommendation that the Committee be made into something analogous to the Urban Council or a Board of Directors owing to the fact that the Police is a disciplined service and the present Com- missioner has indicated his opposition to any changes in this direction. If, however, it is decided to form an agency independent of the Police, Mr. STRATTON's recommendation appears to have certain advantages. In this connection UMELCO say:

"Although in the overseas territories studied there is nothing similar to the Target Com- mittee in Hong Kong, that committee could advantageously be retained in any new anti-corruption structure since it provides an additional safeguard as well as a useful mechanism for deciding priorities."

I too recommend that a Target Committee continue; but, depending on what decision is reached regarding separation, it may have to be re-constituted.

The Courts

242. Two further matters appear to be worthy of mention on an occasion of this kind.

243. In corruption cases, the danger that an accused will "jump" his bail is very great indeed. So often the amount involved in the charges which the prosecution are in a position to prefer represents only "the tip of the iceberg". The police may know that millions of dollars are involved, but they may not be in a position to prove it, and therefore it would be improper for them to mention it. Consequently Crown counsel can merely say to the magistrate; "I oppose bail". Courts frequently insist on being given full reasons for the Crown's opposition to bail; and if the Crown do not consider it proper to give full reasons, bail is then fixed at some figure which is no deterrent whatsoever to the accused departing from the jurisdiction of the court before the date fixed for his trial.

244. At one stage of this inquiry I seriously considered recommending the enactment of a provision which would have enabled the Attorney General, in appropriate cases, to issue a certificate, the effect of which would have been to take away the power of a magistrate to grant bail in the particular case. But, to muzzle judicial discretion is always a serious matter, as indeed it is to be forced to legislate specially for a particular type of offence; and I have decided not to recommend this. However, with the possibility that there will be an increase in the number of section 10 cases coming before the courts, the desirability of enacting a provision of this kind should be kept under review.

55