7
8.
Mr. Board's case was subsequently reviewed by the Ministry of
Overseas Development but the conclusion reached was that there wore
no grounds on which to intervene.
9. On further appeal by Mr. Beard his case was reviewed in the
Commonwealth Office. After careful consideration of all the evidence
ür. Board was told in writing on 15 December 1967 that it was
considered the Government of Hong Kong had acted quite properly and
his contention that he had been unjustly treated could not be accepted.
In reply to a further letter from Mr. Beard the same view of hin caso
was reaffirmod on 18 March, 1968.
10. In May 1968 Mr. A. Kershaw, KP., wrote to Lord Shepherd about the
cane, A full explanation was given by letter to Mr. Kershaw and
subsequently, on 16 August, 1968, Mr. Beard had an interview with
Lord Shepherd at which he was given the opportunity to represent his
case (with Mr. Kershaw present). As a result of this interview,
Lord Shepherd asked the Governor of Hong Kong to review certain
aspects of the case; he accopted the Governor's final conclusion
that there were no grounds to vary the decisions reached and
Mr. Kershaw was so informed.
11. Mr. Beard's cane has thus been carefully examined and roviewed
by the Government of Hong Kong, the Ministry of Overseas Devolopment
and this Office, and each time with the same conclusion.
12. We do not doubt that Mr. Beard genuinely thought that he was
entitled to act for the Commissioner in his absenco, but there in
nothing in his contract which gave him the right to act in this
capacity nor is there any support for his view in any correspondenco
or notice relating to the appointment.
Hong Kong Department,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
17 December, 1969
i
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.