C.S. 143
10
SECRET YO
Our Ref: (42) in DP 66/2 - T.S.
J. A. B. Stewart, Esq., ÓBE, Hong Kong & General Department,
Foreign & Commonwealth Office, HKA4412/393/4
London, S. W. 1 2AH,
England.
Dear Jolm,
in Quittil
512573 D
tugo back to mue
Government Secretariat,
Lower Albert Road,
Hong Kong.
2/ Capes to in Rushfend
me macoun.
*Y NO. 5 15th March, 1978
28 MAR 973
No at
Yau Ma Tei Corruption Case
tas
Thank you for your telegram No. 219 of 14th March. I now enclose a background report on the drug syndicate which operated in the vicinity of the Waterloo Road Fruit Market. The existence of this syndicate has been proved by the successful prosecution of six persons, all of whom are now serving long terms of imprisonment.
The members of this syndicate have made allegations of corruption against 180 identified serving Police Officers and 5 identified serving Customs & Excise officers who are not covered by the partial amnesty in respect of offences committed prior to 1st January 1977. Allegations have also been made against 18 identified former Police Officers and 9 civilians similarly not covered by the amnesty. All these persons have been either arrested (118) or interviewed (75).
Of the 118 persons arrested, six are potential witnesses, having made full confessions of their involvement in corruption. Several others have made partial admissions. However, the main witnesses in almost all the cases are the two leading members of the syndicate, CHAN Man-Chiu and MA Ting-Kit and it has been assessed that, without their evidence, it would only be possible to consider a prosecution against six individuals. As witnesses, they would be subject to long and hostile cross-examination and how long they would be willing to give evidence and how long their credibility would last is a matter of doubt. Moreover, a series of trials of such a large number of persons would last for many years and is not considered to be in the public interest. Both the public and the persons against whom allegations have been made expect early decisive action to be taken.
In these circumstances, you have agreed that it is not practicable to use CR 59 to terminate the services of those serving officers who will not stand trial. For the same reasons that prosecution is unlikely to succeed, the grounds which would have to be given to the officer would not, in many cases, stand up on appeal. You have advised that the Secretary of State has agreed that, in view of the over-riding need to rid the public service of corruption, he would view sympathetically requests for the compulsory retirement under CR 55 of police officers
SECRET
.../2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.