Redacted under FOI exemption 40(2)
'D'
'E'
(e)
6
File No.
Page.....
3
have said, others were involved without being charged at all.
We have only just started looking into this claim. All I can say at the moment is that the picture is not very good.
(f) This matter was taken up. The Police files have now disappeared, and with them a police notebook in which the forgery was alleged to have been made. We have had difficuties tracking this case down, and have not yet fully done so. It would not be our practice to report the outcome to a prosecuting counsel who brings such a matter to our notice.
Mrs. Elliott's "report" dated 3 May.
4.
It is convenient for me to deal at the same time
with the particular cases mentioned by Mrs. Elliott in this
"report".
5.
(a) Paragraph 11. Mrs. Elliott refers to the case of
a man who was prosecuted for murder committed while he was in prison. That was indeed so. I attach a copy of a letter ('D') that I wrote in 1975 to the
S.C.M.P., in the light of public concern at the time. There is nothing that I can add.
(b) Paragraph 11. The case of
I attach a note by Mr. Lucas ('E'), from which you will see that this case was settled on our insistance (and following difficulties with Finance Committee).
was a very bad case.
It
(c) Paragraph 12. The "recent instance" to which Mrs.
Elliott refers is the one to which she refers in
paragraph 10(b) of her letter of 1 June, with which I have already dealt.
I now make the following comments on the broader issues raised in Mrs. Elliott's "report".
G.F. 82
(a)
Section 51 of the Police Force Ordinance
following arrest.
wwww
Procedure
When we spoke a while ago you rightly emphasised the importance to be attached to clearly manifest involvement of uniform branch police officers after a person has been arrested. I must first say that,
Page 30Page 31
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.