TNAG-0409-FCO40-455-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 213

CONFIDENTIAL

AS WE ARE NOW. THINKING THEY CAN BE, THERE SEEMS NO REASON WHY YOU CANNOT GO THROUGH THOSE PROCEDURES VERY QUICKLY AFTER AN ACQUITTAL.

4. WE AGREE THAT REGULATION 62 CAN BE SIMPLIFIED BUT WOULD SUGGEST

SOMETHING ON THE LINES OF THE DRAFT IN MIFT. THE THOUGHT IS THAT

EVIDENCE SPECIFICALLY DISBELIEVED BY THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO BE

LEFT ON ONE SIDE, WHILE FACTS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS FOUND BY THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO DE SUPPORTED BY NEW EVIDENCE. THIS IS

INTENDED TO DEAL WITH THE IMPRECISION WHICH THE BLAIR-KERR REPORT

CRITICISED.

5. WE ACCEPT YOUR REDRAFT OF REGULATION 59(1), BUT WOULD LIKE TO REWORD THE LAST SENTENCE, QUOTE THE OFFICIALS SHALL BE INFORMED

OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HAS RETIREMENT IS CONTEMPLATED AND BE GIVEN

AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS UNQUOTE, GROUNDS ARE NOT

THE SAME AS THE EVIDENCE, STILL LESS ALL THE EVIDENCE, AND

REPRESENTATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS A REPLY, YOU ARE ALREADY

PARAGRAPH 11) PROPOSING TO GIVE A CORRUPT OFFICER GROUNDS,

AND IT IS CLEARLY RIGHT THAT THE REQUIREMENT SHOULD REMAIN FOR NORMAL CASES OF RETIREMENT. TO DISPENSE WITH ALL EXPLANATION WOULD

LEAD TO TROUBLE IN THE 10 PERCENT OF RECALCITRANT CASES, AND WOULD

NOT BE NECESSARY IN THE OTHERS. SINCE YOU WILL BE USING THIS

REGULATION WHERE YOU CANNOT ACTUALLY PROVE CORRUPTION THE GROUNDS

WILL NOT OF COURSE BE THAT THE OFFICER IS CORRUPT, BUT SOMETHING WHICH YOU COULD SUSTAIN, EG THAT THE SUSPICION OF CORRUPTION WHICH SURROUNDS HIM, AFFECTS THE DISCIPLINE OF THIS STAFF OR THE CONFIDENE OF THE PUBLIC TO THE POINT WHERE HIS CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT IS NO

LONGER COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IT IS BETTER THAT ·

HE SHOULD GO WITH HIS PENSION, ARISING FROM THIS YOU MAY WISH TO · CONSIDER WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE ANY PROVISION FOR ENHANCED

PENSIONS AS AN ADDITIONAL TOOL WHICH YOU COULD USE IN APPROPRIATE

CASES.

6. YOUR PARAGRAPH 12. WE APPRECIATE THE NEED FOR SPEED, BUT

THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT YOU PROPOSE WOULD BE TO REMOVE MY POWER

TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION IN ANY BUT THE MOST EXTREME CASE,

IF THE OFFICER WAS ALREADY RETIRED IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT AND

EMBARRASSING FOR ME TO REINSTATE HIM. WE CAN DEAL WITH CASES VERY

QUICKLY IN CASE OF NEED, PARTICULARLY AS YOU CAN PRESUMABLY GIVE

US ADVANCE WARNING OF EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE OFFICER'S OWN

REPRESENTATIONS.

2

CONFIDENTIAL

/7. YOUR PARAGRAPH 13