130
EDITORIAL
H.K.L.J. (1975)
General thought that there would be "little difficulty in obtaining the requested remand." The case
The case was adjourned to the following morning to enable the Crown to produce the "necessary" papers for transferring the case to the District Court. Despite the fact that no such papers are necessary," the following morning the Acting Solicitor General sought a further remand of six days on the ground that the "necessary. transfer papers" would not be available for another two weeks." The learned magistrate reacted to the request by offering bail to Godber, but later that day the Acting Solicitor General sought a review of this decision. This was considered on January 23, when bail was withdrawn and the Crown suddenly produced the "necessary transfer papers." There really cannot be any excuse for this behaviour. One can only assume that all involved confidently believed that the learned magistrate would bow to the will of the Executive.
The second criticism is not confined to officers in the Legal Department: it extends to Mr Prendergast, the I.C.A.C.'s Director of Operations, and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The latter, despite free advice from local lawyers in private practice, did not recover tax, estimated at HK$3.6 million, from , the Crown's star witness, in respect of some £500,000 which he had publicly admitted to having amassed from corruption during his 13 years in the local police force. Although the Commissioner is supposed to act independently of other departments of Government, this decision was apparently taken by "the Government" and not by any individual official, that he would and in pursuance of a secret undertaking to
be allowed to leave Hong Kong without restraint after the trial of Godber. No such restraint was exercised in respect of Godter's counsel. On a Saturday afternoon and before the trial was concluded, the Commissioner's servants descended upon Godber's lawyers and sought information with a view to making a tax assessment on the fees to be paid to his counsel,
* Ibid., January 23, 1975.
0 See Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227, L.H.K. 1971 ed.), s. 88(2),
0
Star, January 22, 1975; Hongkong Standard, January 23, 1975. According to the report in the South China Morning Post, January 23. 1975, the Acting Solicitor General expected the transfer papers to be ready in six days. "If the Attorney General had wanted a conference with his assistant, who was then in London conferring with English counsel, before deciding whether the case should be tried in the Supreme Court or the District Court, the request for a further remand would have been perfectly reasonable. But it "had already been decided that the trial should take place in the District Court! * Hongkong Standard, March 2, 1975.
:
VOL. 5, NO.2
Mr Anthony S
a few weeks!
It is mor Prendergast.
to Cheng when at 7.00 a.m. or play an active Cheng was per of being invol much involved! have evidence tape-recorded "disclosures w in his possessi what Hunt h journalist. Au more than the who was spenc Hong Kong as not suggest th the war agai activity, but w an acceptable normally place the relevant l investigation," be material to give evidence a
But the bi granted to Che whether they v most worrying case." He was 1 which might g clearly has a c any crime, tl he is in pos2CJ.
10
*Sec Prevention of by Ordinance N. "When dismissing General's power, same way as in modern positica pp. 223-4 and/
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.