:
!
65
ts often relate not so much to their innocence but rather to the reasons (if any) for their selection while many others who are, in their view, more "deserving” cases, are unmolested. More often than not, allegations would be made against the law enforcement agents that they are operating on a highly discriminatory policy of selectivity in favour of the privileged or influential groups within the community.
For example. Mrs. Elliott stated in one of her press statements in June 1980 that (Mrs. Elliott's press statement on 17 June 1980):----
55.
"In this connection, I have been informed by several individuals, who are interviewed by members of the SIU; that questions put to them included questions related to the homosexuality of frighteningly high-ranking members of the Police and Judiciary. With my knowledge of all this intrigue going on, am I to shut my eyes to save the skins of higher officials than John MacLennan by acquiescing in what has happened?... It may be of interest to add that I have contacted members of the homosexual community, and learned that MacLennan was not known to be a homosexual. Therefore, what priority could there have been for his arrest on charges not strictly within the scope of the SIU Charter and of a very dubious nature?"
Mr. Howard Lindsay (former Crown Counsel who was dismissed after his acquittal of certain charges on homosexual offences) was very bitter over the "selectivity" of the investigation and prosecution of homosexuals, and he made the following criticism:-17
56.
57.
"But when Duffy was arrested, he later, apparently, petitioned to the Governor in order to have his sentence reduced and whether through Mr. Duffy directly, but certainly on his behalf, reports started appearing in the Chinese press that it was unfair of the Government to be arresting private people, private individuals, when no action was being taken against civil servants. It therefore appeared that in response to that type of criticism in the press it is a political decision, I don't know at what level, but some political decision was taken to arrest people at a low or medium level within the Government in order to satisfy the press, in order to show that some effort was being made at fairness.”
From the ordinary citizen's point of view, he might feel very concerned over the selectivity of SIU investigations if many other persons whom he knows, believes or suspects to be homosexuals are not investigated. It is understandable that he would feel concerned, but nevertheless he may not realize that what he knows is not known to the Police, or vice versa. What is obvious to a person who is familiar with the homosexual scene may not be obvious to the SIU officers unless it is reported to them or detected by their intelligence network. Conversely, the Police may be in possession of information not available to the ordinary citizen.
58.
As far as the gathering of intelligence is concerned, having examined all the SIU records, I find that there is nothing to support the suggestion that the SIU investigations were confined to only junior and/or middle ranking civil servants or any group in particular. In fact, the intelligence records include a fairly large number of personalities occupying different positions in a wide range of occupations.
Then the next questions are: (i) how did the SIU select its targets from this list? and (ii) were there any improprieties in this selection process? It is not possible to provide a fair answer to this question unless the matter is examined in the historical context of the SIU.
59.
60. It can be seen from the foregoing sections that the activities of the SIU at its early stage were confined to procurers and intelligence gathering. There were no in-depth enquiries into the majority of the names which had come to light unless these names were actively linked with known procurers. In the first six months between September 1978 and Frbruary 1979, the SIU obtained a substantial amount of information on the homosexual scene and five investigation files were opened. Of these five persons, one was a leading procurer (Molo Tsui) and the rest were regular customers using young boys procured by Molo Tsui or by themselves. These five files were submitted to the Legal Department for advice as to prosecution in April 1979.
61.
It is important to note that from February to July 1979, the SIU was "wound-down" to what Quinn described as “a man and a dog". During that period, the SIU had no outstanding cases (as all the prosecution files were with the Legal Department) and the Unit was virtually non-functional except for very minor intelligence gathering work.
62. It was not until July 1979 that the SIU activities were "rekindled” but additional staff (up to the original strength, plus one Chief Inspector) was not made available to the Unit until August/September 1979 after the Government House meeting of the 28 August 1979. It is clear from the evidence that since July 1979 the Unit was very busy in re-interviewing all the witnesses involved in the five cases. It was during the course of interviewing one of these witnesses known as "Mars" that the SIU obtained direct evidence implicating Howard Lindsay. The Unit followed up this lead and Lindsay was subsequently prosecuted. Similarly, Logan and MacLennan were not "chosen" from a pool of suspects but their names were given to Constable Liu Man in the course of intelligence gathering. Once credible leads emerged, the SIU was duty bound to follow them up, and they did so. In the next Chapter I shall deal with the manner in which MacLennan's name surfaced. Suffice it to say here that there is no evidence to suggest that MacLennan was singled out or that his targetting was prompted by any improper motive.
17
Lindsay's evidence at Transcript page 2316.