71
CHAPTER 5
INVESTIGATION AND INTENDED PROSECUTION
!
A. THE SIU AND THE YUEN LONG INCIDENT
The SIU was never involved in the actual investigation of the Yuen Long incident. However, in September or October 1978 (before the reinstatement of MacLennan), the Yuen Long file was passed from the CID to the SIU for information, without the SIU asking for it. Messrs. Brooks, Quinn and Graham read it. There was "no discussion per se” on the file. The SIU had the file for a short while and it was returned. Inspector Graham read the Yuen Long file and became aware of the Yuen Long incident. He read the file purely for information. To Graham, the matter was dead. The SIU had no interest in it since they were not the investigating body. He said he read the file before the termination of MacLennan's contract. As Graham had known MacLennan before, he thought it unlikely that MacLennan was a homosexual.
2.
Chief Inspector MacKillop joined the SIU as a Chief Inspector on 14 September 1979. On that same day, Superintendent Brooks returned from leave. Over a period he was given briefings by Brooks and Quinn. He was in charge of administration and he also generally assisted Brooks and Quinn. MacKillop read the Yuen Long file a week or two after he had joined the SIU.
3.
Later in 1978, Quinn called for the Yuen Long file again. Quinn was compiling some form of index of names of suspected homosexuals. It did not occur to him to include MacLennan's name in that index at the time.1
Chief Superintendent Ross did not read the Yuen Long file until December 1978 when MacLennan was under active investigation by the SIU.2
4.
5.
Subject to my findings below, I accept the DCI Mr. Clancy's evidence that the Yuen Long incident did not play any particular part in the subsequent decision to target MacLennan though the incident had been discussed. The officers read the Yuen Long file purely for the purpose of information. I am satisfied that there was no ulterior or sinister motive in the reading of that file.
B.
6.
VETTING OF MACLENNAN
Sometime in December 1978, Senior Superintendent Mansell, Senior Staff Officer, of the Personnel Office, spoke with Ross to the effect that the Personnel Office wished to institute a form of vetting for homosexual tendencies in relation to Police Officers who were being considered for promotion. Ross called at Mansell's office and Mansell showed him the administration file on MacLennan, relating to the termination of his contract and reinstatement. As Ross recalls, he understood that this matter was what had caused the Personnel Office to wish to institute a vetting system for homosexuals in the Force.3 Whilst Mansell denies having asked Ross whether anything was known by the SIU in respect of MacLennan (Commission File B, p. 265A, para. 9), Ross at first agreed that the request came from Mr. Blackburn^, but he also said in evidence that Mansell asked him if the SIU knew anything of MacLennan and he replied he did not think so. Ross really does not appear to be very certain. Mansell showed him the minute sheets in the administration file, and he could recall two minutes in particular, viz. M. 17 and M. 18.5 M. 17 was signed by Mansell, dated 20 November 1978, and reads in part:—6
"Mr. MacLennan stated that while in the company of a number of fellow officers he was approached by the youth who made enquiries about joining the Force and he strongly denied any improper conduct. He also said that the allegations were malicious and might be triad instigated and added that it would appear that an officer's services can be terminated as a result of a malicious allegation.
He then asked if this was the sole reason for his termination and was informed that it was. It was made very clear to him that his services were not terminated on grounds of misconduct and that he would receive full terminal benefits of office."
M. 18 was also signed by Mansell and dated 25 November 1978. Paragraphs 5 and 6 read:-
7
"Mr. MacLennan once again protested his innocence and said that he wished to be charged so that he could clear his name in Court. He stated that any trouble he had ever had was with women and 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 on homosexual personalities in Hong Kong. Despite being strongly warned that he was subject to the Official Secrets Act, he insisted on naming one of the personalities allegedly involved. He stated that if there had been even the slightest doubt about his own sexual tendencies he would never have been assigned these duties.
See Transcript pages 6849-6850.
2 See Transcript page 8416.
3 See Transcript page 8405.
4 See Transcript page 8496.
5 See Transcript page 8406.
6 See Transcript page 8407.
7 See Transcript page 8408.