TNAG-0813-FCO40-1018-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 29

'age

2..............

'C'

(c)

(a)

You will notice that in his note Mr. Reid

points to certain areas in which he feels that the Police might have done more. I think that his views are a counsel of perfection in the circum- stances of this case, where existing material has already established as nearly as one ever can that the complaint is unjustified. Nevertheless, Mr. Reid's note has been circulated to the UMELCO Group, which will no doubt pursue the matter if it thinks it useful to do so.

If what is stated in this paragraph of Mrs. Elliott's letter is correct, I can do no more than record that it is astonishing that the magistrate has not reported the matter to us. Nevertheless, I have my worries

though this particular incident, if

true, is peculiarly blatant.

We had difficulty identifying this case and had eventually to ask the solicitor mentioned by Mrs. Elliott in her letter. We did not disclose that our enquiry was in the context of her letter so as to avoid breaching her confidence with you. I attach a note by Mr. Lucas ('C'). Only two men were charged others were taken to the police station but never charged. I cannot say why because the Police file refers only to those who were charged. The Police themselves wished to abandon a charge of possession of an offensive weapon. We agreed that it could not proceed. The burglary charge went forward, though Crown Counsel was doubtful. The men were acquitted. Though, like the other cases, Mrs. Elliott sets, this one in a "frame-up" context, that was not the case, nor is Mrs. Elliott's presentation of the circumstances in her letter to you accurate. The Police sought our advice in the normal way. One charge was withdrawn, as I have said. No others than the two who eventually appeared on the burglary charge were charged, though, as I