TNAG-0490-FCO40-555-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-Hong-Kong-police-an-1974 — Page 22

N

in 'Support'. This could well be obviated by transferring responsibility for the Preliminary Enquiries Group, which would leave Assistant Director (Operations) answerable only for the longer term but far more intricate investigations.

For convenience we shall refer hereafter in this report to the man actually investigating an allegation as the Investigating Officer, whether he be a Section Head, Case Officer or whatever. The Investigating Officer's task therefore would be to present an investigation, having him- self probed all criminal and disciplinary aspects and we should expect him to make suitable recommendations on both.

It is our belief that, where disciplinary issues are raised, as soon as it is decided that criminal proceedings are not to be taken or when criminal proceedings have been invoked but resulted in acquittal, a decision should be made on the discipline as soon as possible: the desirability for which needs no emphasis from us. Adoption of the above method of investigation much facilitates this objective.

We further suggest that where an investigation results in a formal disciplinary hearing against a public servant, the officer who presents the facts of the matter to the persons determining guilt or otherwise, for convenience we refer to him as the 'Presenting Officer' should be wherever possible the man who investigated the allegation. This could be so in cases involving both the general run of public servants and those of the for want of a better description disciplined services such as the Police Force, etc.

,

We have heard arguments against this which, in the main, fall into two categories. Firstly that such a presenting officer would not be fair or impartial, having a vested interest, and secondly that it would be time wasting for a busy investigator. The first point could be easily negatived by proper briefing and a clear understanding of the role - to present the facts clearly and thoroughly. On the second point we consider the increase in efficiency which would result would well justify the time involved. For example nobody knows the background and depth of a case nearly as well as the Investigating Officer, nobody has his personal knowledge of the parties involved. He probably already has the confidence of witnesses and he more quickly than most can recognise and test a false or manufactured defence. It is obvious that a person trying to establish the truth merely from a set of papers and with no first hand knowledge suffers a grave disadvantage.