ain
to
Dol
uc.
LOW
nd.
old
ce'.
im-
PART V PERSONS INVOLVED
83
307. Our counsel, relying mainly on the principles propounded by the Australian courts in McGuinness v. Attorney General of Victoria, and by the English judges in the Mulholland and other cases, argued that the question should be answered and we were satisfied that our task and our duty made it necessary to require an answer. Mrs. ELLIOTT again refused and we found her to be in con- tempt. Our ruling and decision is set out in Appendix 11.
308. By her action, Mrs. ELLIOTT had not only defied the law of this territory and claimed to set herself above it but she had also violated the oath she had taken on entering the witness box when she swore to Almighty God that she would 'true answer make to all questions put to her before this Commission'. Neverthe- less, although contempt is punishable by fine and imprisonment, we decided to impose no direct punishment but to let retribution come from public opinion and the censure of those who believe that an oath should be honoured and a promise should be kept and that a policeman should not be encouraged to violate his own. oath and to fail in his duty whilst continuing to masquerade-and be paid and stify employed as a policeman.
had
ing
ith.
the
the
had
ince
nent
ion,
olice
h is
ince,
she
rma-
tiga
very
f the
bility
1 his
vhilst
was
s put
309. To condone conduct such as this can only encourage corruption and other crimes because if falsity and dishonesty is encouraged in one policeman it will tend to be encouraged in another; whilst the creation of a general miasma of suspicion settling and resting on guilty and innocent alike can be helpful to the guilty, because it makes their detection and isolation all the more difficult. No responsible authority here would seek to defend malpractice but those in authority must seek to ascertain the facts because without the facts no progress can be made. The guilty cannot be separated from the innocent by the mere repetition of rumour. In this instance, we met with deliberate obstruction in our effort to get to the full facts.
310. Having found Mrs. ELLIOTT in contempt and in violation of the oath which she took on entering the witness box, we dismissed her as a witness and declined to hear any further evidence from her. Thereafter, her solicitor sought and obtained continued audience before the Commission for her representatives but frankly recognized the propriety of precluding them from seeking to pursue further what he called 'the Mong Kok Plot' allegation. It remains, however, for us to say whether any other material available to us lent substance to this allegation.
311. The main-and in the event the only prospect for support or substantia- tion of this allegation was, of course, LO Kei, but this young man's capacity for mendacity and exaggeration was so great that little reliance could be placed on him for corroboration of anything. His evidence had a chameleon-like quality which made it extremely difficult to gather not merely what actually happened but even what he wanted you to think had happened, LO Kei appeared ready to tell ealing any story that seemed to suit the occasion or the approach of his questioner, but d.
he seldom told the same story for long. Nevertheless, even his flights of fancy
have
re the