79
Mr. Henry:
Again, I can only say if that briefing was thorough, that would be adequate.
Mr. Beveridge: Well, without reference to the statements, how would the Officer being briefing know it was thorough?
Mr. Henry: He would, of course, have to accept the bona fides of the individual briefing. Mr. Beveridge: He would be placing himself in total reliance upon the Officer making the briefing?
Mr. Henry:
Of course!"
61. I accept Mr. Henry's comments in relation so Moor's decision to target MacLennan. My view is that it would be unreasonable to expect Mr. Moor, as the Deputy Commissioner in charge of all operational matters in the Force, to read all the files and papers personally before making any decisions on targetting. A Senior Officer at his level should and must rely on the competence and bona fides of his senior staff, especially the D.C.I. who is also a very senior and experienced Officer. It should be noted that in other areas of criminal investigation, the decision to target a suspect rarely goes beyond the level of Chief Staff Officers or, in the case of more serious crimes, the D.C.I. The mere fact that the targetting of suspected homosexuals had to be decided, as a matter of course, by the Deputy Commissioner, was an indication that the Police was determined to handle the investigation of this very sensitive area of crime with care and discretion. Mr. Moor's handling of this matter was therefore in no way unacceptable. He had done all that he was required to do.
H. DECISION TO PROSECUTE MACLENNAN
62.
By mid-November 1979, SIU had located two further male prostitutes, namely, Jeff Tso and Eddie Chu, who also admitted to homosexual offences involving MacLennan. (For their evidence, see Section J below). On 16 November 1979, the Prosecution File on MacLennan was opened on the instructions of Ross. Before opening the file, Clancy and Moor had been consulted, and the decision to open a Prosecution File came from Moor. Brooks then instructed Quinn and the Unit to prepare the file. According to Brooks, there was no urgency-the SIU was still limited in size and manpower and was "battling away" with other cases. Quinn's evidence is that he was given 24 hours in which to make up the file. Moor, Brooks and Clancy or Ross had met to discuss the MacLennan investigation but no specific instructions were given other than that the investigation had to be carried out as efficiently as possible and within the bounds of time.
63.
Shortly after the Prosecution File was opened, Brooks said that he had discussed with the Legal Department the investigation of MacLennan. On 20 November 1979, Brooks discussed on telephone with Mr. C. W. Reid, the Senior Crown Counsel in the Legal Department dealing with SIU investigations, the necessity for corroboration in homosexual offences. Brooks recorded on the MacLennan Prosecution File the following note:-
64.
26
"On 20 November 1979, Brooks/Reid spoke re the necessity for some kind of corroboration in a case of this nature. Mr. Reid C.C. opined that in such a case where several witnesses can give evidence which is apparently true and reliable, no corroboration will be required. This question aross following the ruling of 'no case to answer' by Magistrate MacKenzie-Ross in the 'Lindsay' case.'
Reid's evidence is that he did not give such advice specifically in connection with the MacLennan case and it was intended to be in the nature of a more general advice. In fact Reid never advised on the MacLennan or Logan case because he was on leave at the end of November before the files were sent to the Legal Department.
65.
In the later part of November 1979, the Prosecution Files on MacLennan and Logan were compiled and passed to Moor. After reading the files, Moor was satisfied that there was sufficiently strong evidence against both of them. He then decided to take these files to the Attorney General personally to discuss with him the possible ramifications of prosecuting Logan and MacLennan. He also wanted to stress that he felt that the Attorney General should be satisfied that there were strong prima facie cases against them, especially MacLennan (in view of his Yuen Long background), before arrests were effected and charges laid.
66.
On 30 November 1979, Moor went to see the Attorney General at his office, bringing with him the relevant files. There are some discrepancies between Moor's recollection and that of the Attorney General's in relation to this particular meeting. The following is a brief account of what I believe had transpired at this meeting.
67.
Moor brought with him the Prosecution Files on Logan and MacLennan and probably the Yuen Long file as well. Also present at the meeting was Mr. Macdougall, the then Director of Public Prosecutions (now Mr. Justice Macdougall). Moor then briefed the Attorney General and Mr. Macdougall on the Yuen Long incident and expressed concern over the possible political repercussion if MacLennan was to be prosecuted. The Attorney General told Moor something to the effect that "never mind what happened in the past and look at this one of its merits.”27
26 See Commission File J(i) page 15.
27
See Transcript page 11682.