86
PART V PERSONS INVOLVED
Kei, of his client's direct participation in organizing the riots was untrue but to the additional and different purpose of propagating and giving impetus to the anonymous allegation against the police at Mong Kok.
320. Unlike a court, which is primarily concerned simply with the discharge of the burden of proof, a Commission of Inquiry is required to ascertain the facts relevant to its terms of reference. It is the very negation of this purpose deliberately to withhold information of such facts and the mischief is accentuated if the Com mission is concurrently used to ventilate rumours and sow suspicion whilst with- holding the facts which can determine their validity. The conduct of counsel who lends himself to such behaviour when he is, or should be, aware of his client's intentions, calls, in our opinion, for condemnation.
321. We do not for one moment think that there was any truth in LO Kei's allegation that Mrs. ELLIOTT participated directly in the organization of the riots nor was it shown that this accusation was inspired by anything but his own foolish fantasies. Putting this entirely on one side, there remains the question of how far Mrs. ELLIOTT's previous conduct contributed to the demonstrations and the riots which followed them.
322. Mrs. ELLIOTT did not start the opposition to the ferry fare increases but she lent impetus and a personal slant to the campaign against them. This was done, she told us, in order to give voice to the feelings of the people, but it must also have had all the attractions of an opportunity to put herself at the forefront of a cause that was likely to be popular even if not of major significance to the welfare of the community. She certainly did much to promote the feelings that this was a matter which should be determined not by a group of experienced and knowledgeable people examining and analysing the economics of the problem, with proper regard for the interests of all concerned, but only in accordance with the feeling of the less well-informed, after steps had been taken to animate those feelings by putting the simple question 'Do you want a rise in transport fares or do you not?'
323. In taking office on the Transport Advisory Committee, it would seem that she recognized in this no fetter on the continuation of the campaign against the proposal and that she continued to regard herself more as an advocate for the opposition than as an adviser bringing a detached and impartial mind to a balanced consideration of the issues involved. Her appearance in the mantle of adviser may well have tended to give greater public weight to her pronouncements. It would seem, however, that she never saw herself in the role of anything but a partisan and, not content with that, accused her colleagues of being biased and lacking in impartiality: an accusation which, having regard to the lack of justification for it revealed by her evidence before us, cannot be regarded as anything but ill- founded and despicable. It was, however, a charge that received considerable publicity, as indeed had the whole of the campaign against the proposed increase;
public
real si
which
32 on thi
public
merel
heigh
which
Comt
stratc
the a
them
3
cann
meas
may
in th
or g
on 1
enco
5th
she
dev
atm
miş
to 1
by
not
doi
me