44
him.
Mansell reminded him that he had been officially so informed when the letter of termination was served up Mansell repeated that the termination was a result of recommendations by the Director of Public Prosecutions following an investigation into the Yuen Long complaint. As I have stated above, that was certainly an inaccurate description of how the termination came about, albeit the right reason for the termination was given. MacLennan then said he wanted the reasons in writing. He cited Rowlands as having stated that he must be told the reason for the termination.
47.
Again, MacLennan protested his complete innocence. He stated that any trouble he had ever had was with women. He went on to say that when he was attached to Special Branch he had been assigned to duties in which he had access to very sensitive information concerning homosexual personalities in Hong Kong. Although he was strongly warned that he was subject to the Official Secrets Act, he insisted on naming one of the personalities allegedly involved, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police R. T. M. Henry. He did so not to prove any "frame-up", which he never mentioned, but, according to him, to show that if there had been even the slightest doubt about his own sexual tendencies, he would never have been assigned those duties. At that time, he was again warned that a breach of the Official Secrets Act was a very serious offence. He then explained that he had only made those remarks in the presence of senior police officers and that he wished an interview with General Purdon. He was advised that an early appointment would be made for the interview.32
48.
On Saturday, 25 November 1978, General Purdon discussed the case with Messrs. Blackburn and Over. At the end of this discussion, they agreed (and it was really General Purdon's decision) to recommend MacLennan's reinstatement. General Purdon then instructed Blackburn to notify the Civil Service of their recommendation. In view of the allegation MacLennan had made about Henry, the General, also instructed Blackburn to put Slevin in the picture. Slevin had by then returned to Hong Kong from leave and Henry had reverted to his post as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations). Blackburn saw Slevin and appraised him of the situation. Somehow, Mr. Slevin appeared to be aware of it already. He agreed there was no alternative to reinstatement. The General then spoke to Mr. Hunter, the Deputy Secretary for the Civil Service. On Monday, 27 November 1978, General Purdon saw MacLennan and told him that the matter had been reviewed; it appeared that having regard to the weight of evidence, he should be given the benefit of the doubt, and therefore a recommendation would be made to the Secretary for the Civil Service rescinding the notice of termination. Mr. Henry was not consulted about MacLennan's reinstatement. This was obviously sensible because of the latter's recent allegations to Mansell.
49.
Mr. Daniell spoke to Mr. Rowlands on 22 November 1978. Rowlands was sympathetic and understanding. He agreed that reasons for termination should have been given to MacLennan. That was probably what gave rise to MacLennan's statement to Mansell on 24 November 1978 (see paras 46 and 47). After the call, Rowlands reviewed the case and came to the conclusion that the termination was unfair and should be cancelled for two reasons. Firstly, only in the most exceptional cases should the Government terminate a contract in mid-term without giving the officer reasons and without giving him an opportunity to explain his actions and secondly, one should be very careful before determining a contract on the basis of allegations which have not been substantiated and particularly in cases where there is no way of really establishing the veracity of the allegations. Rowlands spoke to his Deputy Secretary Hunter who told him that by that time the Police themselves had also reviewed the case and recommended reinstatement.
50. On or about 29 November 1978, Mr. Blackburn, as instructed by General Purdon, spoke to Mr. Hunter, his liaison in the Civil Service. Mr. Blackburn explained that the intended discharge was based on rather tenuous evidence which would be difficult to support on appeal. He also advised Hunter that the Governor, Judge Daniell and Mrs. Elliott were interested in the case. Hunter said the only course of action open would be to uphold MacLennan's appeal. Blackburn interviewed MacLennan later the same day and made a contemporaneous minute of the interview.33 He told MacLennan that his appeal was under active consideration and the result would be known in a few days but meanwhile, he should take such steps as necessary to prevent his friends from making representations on his behalf in any quarter of the Government.
51. As a result of these discussions, the Civil Service prepared a memorandum to the Commissioner of Police dated 30 November 1978 stating:-
52.
:
"... on reconsideration, it is now my opinion that there are insufficient grounds for the termination of this officer's services. Provided you have no objection, please deliver the attached letter to him. Since Mr. MacLennan wil not doubt find it difficult to understand why the earlier letter was issued, it is suggested that he should be interviewed by a senior officer. He will no doubt need reassurance that his career in the Force will not be affected."
34
By then, therefore, events had taken a complete turn. Inspector MacLennan was to be reinstated, as recommended by Purdon and approved by Rowlands.
32 File F(i) page 14.
33
File F(i) page 16.
34
File K page 58.
1