APPENDICES
APPENDIX NO. 11
163
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON MRS. ELLIOTT'S REFUSAL TO ANSWER
We return to an unpleasant duty and a distasteful task; to deal with an instance of contempt in circumstances where one might reasonably have hoped that it would not arise. A lady of mature years, an Urban Councillor and herself a teacher of youth, has refused to answer a question when required to do so before this Commission and has thus refused to give information within her knowledge on a matter that is of material importance to our Inquiry.
She claimed that on the night of 6th April, a woman came to the outer door of the school where she lives and gave to the headmaster, who in turn gave it to her, a message which purported to have its source in a policeman at Mong Kok. The precise form of the message remains somewhat uncertain; when first recounted to us it was:
'a warning to be careful because some police in Mong Kok had engaged some "ah feis" to go into the riots-to go into the streets and throw stones and later they would blame me'.
Subsequent versions have varied somewhat and there have been references to 'Laan Tsai' which Mrs. ELLIOTT says are the same as 'ah feis'. Mrs. ELLIOTT says that she knew the name of the policeman who had sent this message and apparently she had on other occasions received from him information which she regarded as reliable.
The messenger of the 6th subsequently, on the 8th or 9th, Mrs. ELLIOTT is not quite certain of the date, conveyed further information to her broadly to the effect that a young man LO Kei, arrested by the police on the 7th, was, or was to be, her accuser and there was some suggestion that in return he would get a scholarship.
Apparently, no action was taken by Mrs. ELLIOTT to inform the authorities of what she had learned on the 6th, although rioting continued on the 7th, nor did she inform them of the further information of the 8th or 9th but on the 13th, she wrote to Mr. SANGUINETTI a letter which has been exhibited, telling him what had occurred. There is no indication that he took any step to inform the authorities or advised Mrs. ELLIOTT to do so. There are indications in her evidence that although Mrs. ELLIOTT may have received reliable informa- tion from this source in the past she was not at the time convinced of the truth of this message although she has since come to believe it. She has, however, refused to give the name of the policeman, the source of the alleged message of the 6th, on the ground that she does not want it disclosed because he fears he would be victimized, and he has not, himself, come forward to give evidence or information on the matter to the Commission.
In effect, we now have before us two allegations against the police, neither of which can be tested or probed: (1) that some of their members at Mong Kok have committed a serious crime and (2) that those in authority would permit a man who disclosed that crime to be victimized a suggestion it is difficult to credit.
It has been pointed out to Mrs. ELLIOTT that either her informant has made a false and malicious accusation, or some policemen in Mong Kok have committed a serious crime. One or other is wickedly at fault but she, by her silence, is shielding both and stifling the investigation which alone can determine where the truth lies. Unless she speaks or the policeman comes forward, we shall not know because we cannot uncover the facts. In this connection I directed her attention to a passage from the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, Lord DENNING, in a case which dealt with a somewhat similar situation where a journalist had made allegations against the conduct of the Admiralty in London but had