TNAG-0409-FCO40-455-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 42

CONFIDENTIAL

Lunless there

an overriding

reasour fr

nor doing so (eg relating

to the sour C£ of the evidenc,

4.

I agree that this is a good example of the sort of case which can properly be dealt with under Regulation 55 in that:

and

5.

a.

b.

C.

there is overwhelming evidence of an offence;

that evidence cannot either be produced or is not admissible in court;

the source cannot be disclosed.

I also agree with the outline procedure suggested by Hong Kong, with the following modifications:

a.

b.

c.

It is long established doctrine that although it is not an absolute rule that Her Majesty's Pleasure will never be exercised in the dismissal of an officer, without first giving him a chance to state his case, the Secretary of State will normally expect to an officer should be given a chance to defend himself;

ve

It follows that if

answer to the first or second question is in the negative, I consider that he should be told that the authorities know that he is lying, and that he has in fact a bank account outside Hong Kong in which there is a substantial balance; and he should be given an opportunity to reply to that;

(Paragraph 6 of Hong Kong telegram 1181).

If

replies are unsatisfactory, he should not be given "a letter notifying his removal from office under CR55 without any benefits". but should be informed that the Governor proposes to recommend to the Secretary of State that he should so be removed without any benefits. In practice this need cause no substantial delay; we should be able to convey the Secretary of State's agreement very quickly indeed; but what the Governor is in fact suggesting is that the Secretary of State should delegate to him power which should remain here, and which should not be exercised until what, if any, reply the officer makes to the charge against him.

known

16 October 1973

J.S. Champin.

J S CHAMPION

Gibraltar & General Dept.

CONFIDENTIAL