TNAG-0492-FCO40-557-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-Hong-Kong-police-an-1974 — Page 88

Mr Rushford

Reference.........

PF GODBER

Reading v Attorney General 1951 AC 507 (1948 2KB 268; 1949 2KB 232)

Reading, a British army sergeant in Cairo, received money as a reward for sitting in uniform on a loaded lorry when it was carrying illicit spirits, and thus ensuring that there would be no police inspection. Reading was convicted on court martial and his money taken by the Crown. He subsequently claimed the return of the proceeds of his crime from the Crown by civil proceedings.

Held (by HL which dismissed Reading's appeal from the CA which similarly dismissed Reading's appeal from KB)

the Crown was entitled to the money, on the principle that "if a servant, in violation of his duty of honesty and good faith, takes advantage of his service to make a profit for himself, in this sense, that the assets of which he has control, or the facilities which he enjoys, or the position which he occupies, are the real cause of his obtaining the money, then he is accountable for it to the master. It matters not that the master has not lost any profit, nor suffered any damage."

Also on the principle that there is a fiduciary relationship in most master/servant cases and the servant is therefore accountable for any secret profit.

No matter that the servant has clearly obtained this profit by a criminal act.

Attorney General v Goddard 98 LJ (KB) 743

Police Sergeant received bribes in the course of making confidential inquiries and was ordered to hand them to the Crown.

So the Crown may have a chance in the Godber case. Since there would be no criminal conviction, the proof of the bribe-taking would be on a civil standard only and would have to take place in the civil proceedings. Any claim by a third party would have to take priority.

5 November 1974

Miss E Wilmshurst Legal Advisers