sta de 15 DATA KASU
tion,
ster
Editorial
The Godber affair
SOME of the damage of the Godber affair, itemised in this Journal in 1973, has been repaired by the recent extradition and subsequent conviction of Peter Fitzroy Godber on charges involving corruption. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (I.C.A.C.), after a long trawling expedition in murky and uncharted waters, may be congratulating itself on finally catching a big fish, especially at a time when it seemed that its vast nets were being fouled by smaller fry. The man and woman on the Shaukiwan tram may be fairly, if not fully, satisfied with the result, but the methods adopted to land this prize are dubious, to say the least, and are unlikely to enhance their respect for the law or their confidence in certain public servants whose duty it is to uphold the law.
There are many aspects of the Crown's handling of this case which require the closest scrutiny and invite severe criticism. Not all of these can be adequately covered in an editorial. But three cry out for immediate comment and condemnation. First, the Crown's apparent disrespect to the courts in England and Hong Kong deserves attention. Secondly,
the conduct of certain public servants is highly questionable. And finally, Godber's lawyers appear to have been subjected to unnecessary obstruction in the discharge of their duties to their client.
In support of the first criticism one can point to the withholding from the English courts of certain important facts connected with the application for Godber's extradition; the failure to explain to the trial judge the basis on which the "exceptionally wide and generous" amnesties were given to
and the two principal witnesses for the Crown and the extraordinary forensic acrobatics performed in the Central Magistracy in January 1975, a few weeks after Godber's return to Hong Kong.
Although the Crown had already decided that the trial should take place in the District Court, on January 21 Crown Counsel requested a further remand of seven days "pending further instructions from the Attorney General." No other reason was given to the court but, apparently, the Attorney
1 (1973) 3 H.K.L.J. 249.
*
Per Yang D.J. in Peter Fitzroy Godber (1975) V.D.Ct., Crima. L.C. No. 13 of 1975. Unless otherwise indicated all quotations in the text are taken from this judgment.
*South China Morning Post, January 22, 1975.
ཏ པ ད པ ཧ ནུ{ ##7ཡོད སྤ
1381
+
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.