TNAG-0812-FCO40-1017-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 2

However, in a recent case, the defence made no admissions bearing on the accused's official emoluments and insisted on strict proof for this part of the prosecution case. This was a case involving a former Crown servant whose service ran from 1947 to 1974. The prosecution could not call any witness who could speak with first-hand knowledge of any amount paid to the accused by way of official emoluments during his career. Instead the prosecution relied on the type of evidence described in paragraph 3 and sought to substantiate its case by reliance on the Annual Estimates. But the court rejected this evidence as inadmissible under the law of evidence and held that the accused had no case to answer.

5

It is clear from the judgment in this case that any future prosecution for an alleged offence under section 10 is

doomed to failure unless the prosecution can call witnesses to give direct evidence from their own knowledge as to the accused's official emoluments. For the reasons given in paragraph 3 the prosecution will seldom, if ever, be able to call such witnesses. Accordingly, it is considered necessary to make an amendment to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance to facilitate proof of official emoluments. Such a course was adverted to in the Court's judgment.

The Bill

6

The bill, annexed to this paper, will enable official emoluments to be proved by the production of a certificate, signed by the Chief Secretary, showing the official emoluments and allowances paid to a Crown servant. Such a certificate could also relate to the Crown servant's length of service and to any office held by a Crown servant during his career. Any court would be bound to accept as true any facts stated in a certificate unless the defence could prove to the contrary.

Public Reaction

7

The news of the acquittal of the accused in the recent case has been given some prominence and may have caused some doubts as to the Government's ability to deal with section 10 offences. This bill, it is thought, will allay doubts and should be well received. However, it is possible that it may draw some criticism from lawyers, who may regard it as making the prose- cutor's job much easier.

CONFIDENTIAL **