TNAG-0492-FCO40-557-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-Hong-Kong-police-an-1974 — Page 106

HR Realfood

ستا

or her appelait

but would wanting

thank the defence recewand the

relevant information

pfapt (nome;

Amma the writ

ん

محتارا

سمهمعه

tar

1.

Confidenhall.

PA on file

Amy 31/10

Mr Scrivener in the presence of Messrs. Rushford and Stuart and of Mr Funnell, his instructing solicitor, agreed to the following statement of his own position:

"While in principle I cannot bind myself not to use any information available to the defence, in practice in the circumstances of this case I cannot conceive of circumstances in which I would do so [i.e. make use of Mrs Godber's affidavit tesired, or call her or Superintendent Irvine to give evidence] because it would be harmful to the defence. Those concerned may therefore understand that in practice it will not happen.

2.

Mr Scrivener went on to say that if contrary to these expectations, he did find himself obliged to make any use of Mrs Godber's statement, he would undertake to speak beforehand to Mr French (Counsel for the Prosecution), indicating what he proposed to do, showing him the affidavit, and also informing him of the details of his approach to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and in particular of his stipulations as to confidentiality.

3.

ty

As an alternative Mr Scrivener said he was willing to agree to a formula in the terms of which the either tre would now speak to Mr French, or the FCO Altancy

Generat

His Gradben

op the Hong Kong Government might do so. This formula would not mention Superintendent Irvine, Mrs Godber or her affidavit; but would reveal that the reason why defence solicitors had written to the prosecution asking for the details of any arrangement with Mr Hunt, had been that the defence had received some evidence that there might have been some

arrangement under which

Lagreed to give evidence in return for an assurance of immunity from

formula prosecution for himself and his wife. The statement

sd be wo would also reveal that Mr Scrivener did not

use this evidence, but since it suggested the pessibility of some irregularity or inadvertanee-in Hong Kong, he had thought it right to bring it to the notice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a

had

(17865) Dd.145178 400m 5/73 G.W.B.Ltd. Gp.863

ん

letter h Charles

Ramall jus

/confidential

gus euelsmes

જ

What to thiye he had no intent

L

везив

time draments