21
()
52.
J. R. Duffy
Mr. John Richard Duffy, a former Solicitor, was at the time of my appointment, serving a prison sentence for homosexual offences to which he had pleaded guilty. After consideration of papers supplied to them, the Commission's Investigators decided to call on Duffy when he volunteered certain information about Inspector MacLennan and about some of the witnesses who were to give evidence before me. Duffy was visited on two occasions in prison, firstly by Mr. Anthony Neoh and Mr. Carratu, and then, by Mr. Murray Burton of F. Zimmern & Co. On the basis of these two visits, it appeared that Duffy might at some future date be required to give evidence to this Commission.
53. When Mr. Burton visited Duffy, it was close to his release from prison and he assured Mr. Burton that he would provide such further assistance to this Commission as was required. Relying on this promise and not having been told by Leading Counsel at that stage that Duffy was definitely required to give evidence, my Solicitors decided not to serve a witness summons on Duffy before his release from prison.
54.
After his release from prison, Duffy, without informing my Solicitors, left Hong Kong, and has since remained elusive. In about December 1980, I issued a Witness Summons directing Duffy to attend to give evidence on 10 December 1980. Mr. Burton of F. Zimmern & Co. was, on 5 January 1981, able to come face-to-face with Duffy at Hong Kong International Airport but Duffy refused to accept the Summons, telling Mr. Burton to serve the Summons on his Solicitor, whom he named as Mr. Ian MacCallum. My Counsel then applied to me for Substituted Service of the Summons on Duffy's named Solicitors, namely, Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist of which Mr. MacCallum was, and is, Senior Partner. The Summons was also served on Duffy's contact address given to Mr. Burton whilst Duffy was in prison. The next day, the Commission Solicitors contacted Mr. MacCallum of Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist & Co. who advised that at that stage they had received no instructions from Duffy to accept service. This was subsequently confirmed in writing.
55. with
Duffy clearly had notice of Service because in the next few months, he entered into extensive correspondence my Solicitors, in which he imposed terms, which included compensation for loss of earnings and for his attendance to give evidence. These were terms that no reasonable Tribunal could accede to.
56. On the return day of the Summons, Duffy failed to appear. I therefore issued a Warrant of Arrest. This Warrant has since been discharged. The matter is now being dealt with by the Magistrates' Court.
57.
Based on the interviews between Duffy and the Commission's lawyers, a statement was compiled and read out at the public hearings but it was unsigned. In view of Duffy's conduct described above, I am of the firm opinion that he is a thoroughly unreliable character. I have rejected the statement in toto as not being worthy of credence. In any event there is nothing in the statement which is of value to the Commission's inquiry.
58.
For a full account, see Appendix 7.
(g) Resumption of Hearings from 29 October 1980
59. By early October 1980, it was conclusively demonstrated to me that the investigations could not be completed within the four weeks I had originally allotted. The Investigators who had been working extremely hard, as had my Legal Advisers, advised me that a further four weeks were necessary and I therefore decided, not without reluctance, to postpone the resumption of public hearings until 29 October 1980.
60.
On 29 October 1980, when public hearings resumed, the ground work which I had previously described, though not completed, had been sufficiently advanced to enable the Commission to proceed. At that time, the Commission had an additional 60 statements taken by Carratu and Reeder and some 30 statements taken by Solicitors to the Commission. A completely revised set of documentation was also available to myself and Counsel to the Commission, as well as to Legal Advisers then representing parties appearing before me. A completely revised list of Commission files exhibited is set out at Appendix 8. I also had a revised list of witnesses in the light of the investigations conducted during the adjournment.
(h) Presentation of Report by Carratu Limited
61.
The Investigators, before they left in early November 1980, submitted a 200-page report to my Legal Advisers. This Report was intended to assist Counsel for the Commission in their forensic duties, that is, to decide on the witnesses to be called, to ensure what further lines of enquiry (if any) after the evidence of each witness were followed up, and generally, to ensure that all relevant evidence was to be publicly presented and tested. When the Report was presented, I decided not to read it in order that my mind be free from any influence which the conclusions reached by the Commission's Investigators might have upon me. These conclusions were at best tentative, since material on which their conclusions were based might not coincide with the evidence which would later be called before the Commission. I will be forwarding the Investigators' Report to His Excellency under separate cover because I am of the view that it is