TNAG-0679-FCO40-828-Allegations-of-corruption-and-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 18

6 -

on the 19th August. The following joint stage report, read to him on the 27th September (Exhibit 8'note 7), again concludes with the proviso that he might not complete the course successfully. There are several other reports pade by Mr. Tidoy to Mr. Horrin or by Ir. Morrin to Police Headquarters to support these records.

maintains that all these

documents have been subsequently fabricated in order to substantiate the case against hin. I do not accept this is so. And I base my decision partly upon the difficultics inherent in such an undertaking and partly upon my assessment of the police officers

concerned. I am satisfied that from the end of the first stage

onwards Sergeant Khan was well aware of the views of his instructors and that there was a good chance he would be rejected.

I do not think it necessary or desirable that I should comment upon the suggestion, that the eventual rejection was attributable to the Sergcent's refusal to respond to corrupt

overtures made to him by members of the staff of the Training

School. This has no relevance to the question of whether or not

he should have been given the opportunity to make prior representation

to the Commissioner. It may have relevance in the context of bins, in the sense that the Deputy Commissioner did not make an honest exercise of judgment. But that could only be if it were suggested

that the Deputy Commissioner was also party to the corruption.

That suggestion has not been made. For this reason I did not

allow

to go into the matter at length. I allowed

him to put it to his witness as if it were cross-examination as

to credit, but by the sare token treated the denial as conclusive

for the purposes of this hearing.

It only retains to consider the point raisod in pera.9

of the statement of claim, that Ir. Rolph was not within the

definition of "commissioner" when he made the reversion order.

By section 3 of the Crdinance that word includes "a deputy commissioner",

In the Gazette of the 4th October 1968 r. Rolph was appointed "Acting Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration)" and I have

not been directed to any variation of that appointment before the

21st November. I can find no reference in the Ordinance to acting

appointments as such.. Possibly this aspect has some administrative