TNAG-0411-FCO40-457-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 64

CONFIDENTIAL

4.

We have got nowhere.

The Home Office officials, who have

cleared their line with their Secretary of State, hold to the

argument that the Home Secretary could face unacceptable

embarrassment in this country if he had to authorise the return

of anyone for trial in the dependent territories on a charge

which did not constitute a crime in this country. The Law Officers

have supported the Home Office, largely on the ground that an

amendment to the double criminality rule would be, and would be

seen to be aimed largely at the enforcement of Section 10 of the

Hong Kong Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, which makes it an

offence for a public officer to be in control of unexplained

resources not commensurate with his official emoluments.

Law Officers have never liked this provision and would not be

3prepared to defend it in Parliament. They would also be reluctant

to support measures designed to increase its effectiveness.

5.

The

Against this we have used arguments of principle and

practice. The double criminality rule is relatively new in its

application to the dependent territories. Before the 1967 Act it

did not apply. There was then no embarrassment. This has come now

when Godber has taken advantage of the existence of the rule. It

is not logical for us to approve the laws of the dependent

territories, particularly Hong Kong where there is an official

majority in Legislative Council, and to frustrate their operation.

There is a parallel in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

where return is automatic;

and where, although the laws are

similar to the UK's, they are not the same (for example they provide

for the death penalty). We do not argue the case in relation to

Mr Godber and Section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance

only. But his case has thrown light on the decision of the last

/Government

CONFIDENTIAL