TNAG-0489-FCO40-554-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-Hong-Kong-police-an-1974 — Page 59

could not concern itself with any administrative

aspects of Mr Ellis's case. He also made the

point that the evidence already available had

been gone over several times in the past. If

the Commission were to have any chance of turning

up anything new, it would be necessary for Mr

Ellis to set out clearly his evidence and

allegations of specific corruption in a form which

could be investigated by the Commission. In

particular it would be helpful if Mr Ellis could

set out in a memorandum the new evidence on

corruption which he would have put before the

1965 enquiry if he had appeared before it.

Perhaps

you would inform Mr Ellis accordingly, and suggest

that he submit his evidence in writing through

Mr Stuart, the Head of our Hong Kong & Indian

ws?

Ocean Department, whom he knows.

Turning to the question of the "wider

administrative abuse" to which Mr Ellis refers in

his letter of 7 December and which he alleges led

to the termination of his appointment in Hong

Kong; like you I am anxious that Mr Ellis should

accept that everything possible has been and is

being done to investigate his allegations. I

hope he can come to accept that, any question of

corruption apart, the Hong Kong Government were

within their contractual right to terminate his

probationary appointment in the way that they did.

The core of his case is that the reasons for his

discharge were distorted by corruption. He himself

stressed this in his interview with the Overseas

Police Adviser. I can only urge him, as you have

/done,

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN