TNAG-0713-FCO40-908-Colonial-Regulations-policy-on-disciplinary-procedures-1978 — Page 32

CONFIDENTIAL

(Flag A

(FL, B)

folis (16)

(attada))

Blokford Legal Advisers

Mr Bickford

Reference...HKA435/393/6....

MOSTAT NO. 5!

10 AUG 1978

PA

*FICER

INDEX

NJ

RECIS RY

Action xen

P.P.1%

APPLICATION OF COLONIAL REGULATIONS 54 61 (DISCIPLINARY CASES)

бее

1. Before he left on posting, Mr Stewart indicated to Hong Kong that we were going to have a fundamental look at the application of the disciplinary Col Regs with a view to setting out for the benefit of both ourselves and Hong Kong what our policy now is. Since 1974, the document which has been the basis of our policy, but from which we have strayed to some extent, has been Mr Champion's letter HX18/501/5 of 9 April 1974, a copy of which I attach.

2. By coincidence Mr Hunter, Deputy Secretary for the Civil Service, Hong Kong, who is responsible for disciplinary matters, has been thinking on the same lines and has prepared a note of the position as he sees it. In general I believe that Mr Hunter's note reflects our views accurately, with the glaring exception of section iic, which tries to make out that CR55 can be used

as a catch-all for those who cannot be convicted or removed

under CR59. Our position on this is clear: CR55 should not normally be used at all, but on application by Hong Kong we will consider approving its use in cases where for reasons of sensitivity a public investigation is inappropriate. The use of CR55 to remove over a hundred policemen (the Yaumatei case) was

quite exceptional and Hong Kong have been told this. The whole

question of using CR55 in this case was a political decision made with the Secretary of State's personal approval; the same would apply to any similar request in the future.

·

3. I should be grateful for your comments, both on Mr Hunter's paper and on the state of our policy on disciplinary cases as you see it from a legal point of view. I know that you stated very firm views on the use (or misuse) of CR59 in the Kent case

which resulted in a disagreement with Hong Kong and Inspector Kent finally being reinstated. From my reading of all the files on disciplinary cases back to 1976 it appears that it is not so much a matter of policies having changed as of Hong Kong not following their own rules of procedure. If they were more conscientious about this cases would be processed much quicker

than has recently been the easG.

·

CODE 18. 77

14 June 1978

LAST

REM

NF:-

RCY

23

NE GREEN HKGD