§ 74. Sir Anthony Royleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the British Government accepted the conduct and conclusion of the recent Hong Kong Anti-Corruption Commission Inquiry into the allegations of Mr Alan Ellis when no attempt has been made to assist him to determine physically the identity of a key witness which he now disputes; and why the intention to exclude from the inquiry the basis of his complaint was not revealed to Mr. Ellis until July 1975.
§ Mr. EnnalsHer Majesty's Government were satisfied because the Hong Kong Government's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) made a thorough investigation of Mr. Ellis's allegations in 1974 and 1975. During this Mr. Ellis was asked to identify the person whom he alleges offered him a bribe in 1962 from photographs of all the traceable junior staff of Hung Horn Police Station where the event was said to have taken place. Mr. Ellis made a wrong208W identification and there are no other records of the staff available to pursue the inquiry further. No purpose would therefore be served by his going to Hong Kong at public expense.
I understand that the basis of Mr. Ellis's complaint is that of wrongful dismissal from the Hong Kong Police Force. This is an administrative matter outside the scope of the ICAC, as Mr. Ellis himself acknowledged in a written statement made on 2nd December 1974.