2
PART I INTRODUCTION
7. We held the opening public session of the Commission on the 11th May and outlined the procedure we proposed to follow, at the same time announcing that we would modify it at any time should this appear desirable.
8. We indicated that counsel for the Commission would be asked to examine the statements sent in and to adduce from them material relevant to our proceed- ings; that if he should decide not to call any potential witness, there would be a right of appeal to the Commission; that any individual whose evidence was to be adduced would, unless in particular cases we decided otherwise, be asked to come forward at a public session to give evidence on oath or affirmation; and that he would be examined in the first instance by counsel for the Commission, there- after, if represented by counsel, his own counsel would have an opportunity of questioning him, as would any counsel representing parties who satisfied us they had an interest in his testimony; and finally he would be re-examined by counsel for the Commission. The Commissioners could, of course, put questions if they wished. Reference was made to Section 4 of the Commissioners Powers Ordinance, which provides protection against civil proceedings and, in addition, the public was told that the Attorney General had authorized the chairman to say on his behalf that any statement made before the Inquiry would not be used in any criminal proceedings, other than proceedings for perjury before the Commission or contempt.
9.
Thereafter, we considered requests for representation before the Com- mission. A list of those who were so represented appears in Appendix 2. The contention that the Commissioners Powers Ordinance contemplates audience for both solicitor and barrister was not questioned and we acceded to it.
10. With the exception of a number of statements from academic and social welfare circles which we found of benefit in forming our views, comparatively few statements were received from members of the public and these generally proved of little value since few related to the actual events of the disturbances or contain- ed adequate evidence as to the causes: furthermore, some were anonymous.
11. Our staff, however, took steps to obtain statements from a substantial number of individuals who seemed likely to be able to assist us in determining the course of events during and immediately preceding the riots. From amongst them our counsel called those who could provide the most material evidence to give sworn testimony in public. As a result we have had evidence as to what occurred from a number of individuals who took part in or observed the events between the 5th and 8th April; including demonstrators, individuals convicted of offences, the Commissioner and other police officers, press and television reporters, photographers, bus drivers and others.
12. We spent the morning of June 7th in Kowloon visiting the location of major incidents mentioned in evidence before the Commission and gaining a