TNAG-0990-FCO40-1209-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 170

}}}

CONFIDENTIAL

2

-

6.

CR 55 is a possibility, as the conditions set down in para. 6 of Champion's letter of 9th April 1974 would be fulfilled. However, frequent use of CR 55 would create problems with the Staff Side here, and no doubt attract criticism in the UK, unless we could make it demonstrably clear that the officer had been given a fair hearing.

7.

In order to overcome this problem we have given much thought to possible ways of modifying existing procedures in dealing with cases of this type. The conclusion we have come to is that we should consider setting up some sort of tribunal, outside the normal disciplinary procedures of Government, to consider and make recommendations on such cases.

8.

The role of such a tribunal would be to examine all the evidence available, including that which could not be revealed in court, bút not necessarily in the presence of the officer in question. The tribunal would be empowered to summon witnesses. As with an investigating committee under CR 57, the tribunal would make its recommendations on the "balance of probabilities", rather than adopt the same standard of proof as a court.

9.

The tribunal would be required to satisfy itself completely regarding the reliability of the evidence produced to it. Upon being satisfied that it was no longer in the public interest for the officer to remain in Government employ, the tribunal would make a recommendation to the Governor that action be taken to retire him. Normally officers retired on the recommendation of the tribunal would be given their full earned pension benefits. The tribunal might be chaired by a member of the legal profession, perhaps a retired high court judge, and have perhaps two members: one might be the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the other might be a leading citizen. Civil Service Branch might provide a secretary.

10.

The

It is for consideration whether cases which have been referred to the tribunal should be dealt with under CR 55 or CR 59.

11.

CR 55 has the merit that such cases would fall within the guidelines laid down by Champion in his letter of 9th April 1974, i.e. that there is overwhelming evidence of misconduct which would justify the officer's dismissal or compulsory retirement and that the evidence cannot be produced, or its source revealed, in court or in disciplinary proceedings. CR 55 also has the merit that it provides the option of either dismissal or compulsory retirement, which CR 59 does not. Moreover, it is widely accepted in Hong

not least in the civil service, that corruption cases

Kong,

/do....

CONFIDENTIAL