TNAG-0816-FCO40-1022-Police-corruption-Independent-Commission-Against-Corruption--1978 — Page 208

CONFIDENTIAL

B

C

- 2 -

more culpable than the remainder, whom he will bring to trial. Such action is proposed in the full realisation that at some stage during the consecutive trials the prosecution may fail because the witnesses refuse to testify further or will lose

their credibility.

4.

For the remainder some 150 officers - the Governor suggests action for compulsory retirement be taken under Colonial Regulations or the Police Force Ordinance (Cap 232).

In fact,

because all those so far identified in the Yau ma tei case are

of the rank of Sergeant or below, action to retire them compulsorily from the public service will be taken under Cap 232 as the appropriate Colonial Regulations only affect senior officers. Action under Cap 232 does not call for approval by the Secretary of State whereas compulsory retirement under Colonial Regulations

must be so approved in each case. However, the Hong Kong Government have adopted as their policy that the degree of proof required in cases falling within the Police Force (or Civil Service) Ordinance should be of the same acceptability as in Colonial Regulations cases. This, because of the requirements of natural justice, but also because of the possibility of an eventual petition from one of those affected to the Secretary

of State or the Crown.

5. The Governor suggests that in future appropriate cases they should use Colonial Regulation 59 which provides for the Governor to require the retirement of an officer if, after investigation, he is satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest. Under the terms of this Regulation the officer must be informed of the grounds on which his retirement is contemplated and the Governor suggests that sufficient grounds exist if the Commissioner of Police simply states that he has lost confidence in the officer. While I agree with the Governor that it would be very undesirable to make known to each officer the precise reasons for his proposed retirement, since it would give him an opportunity to question the reliability of witnesses who are of dubious character, I do not agree that an unsubstantiated

assertion of "loss of confidence" constitutes sufficient grounds

for retirement under Regulation 59.

/6.