165
31. After appointing Moorfoot as the Coroner's Officer, the Attorney General was in frequent touch with him to keep abreast of the enquiries. The Attorney General in the course of such contacts, informed Moorfoot of what he had been told by Mrs. Elliott and suggested to Moorfoot that he should personally see Fulton as Fulton had in late January 1980 refused to see Astin, the Attorney General's Assistant (see para. 58). The Attorney General also suggested that Moorfoot should personally interview Mrs. Thomson and Mrs. Elliott.
32.
The Attorney General also favoured a wide approach to the enquiries then being conducted. He based this view on his then interpretation of the Coroner's Ordinance. In three discussions with Moorfoot, at all of which Mr. A. Hodge, Crown Counsel representing the Police, was in attendance, the Attorney General expressed this view. On the first of these occasions, after this view was expressed by the Attorney General, there was a general discussion among the three persons present, at the end of which Moorfoot said he would discuss the matter with the Coroner. On the second occasion, Moorfoot informed the Attorney General that the Coroner's view, shared by Moorfoot, was that the Ordinance did not allow the wide approach envisaged by the Attorney General. It will be seen that at the Inquest Hodge made an unsuccessful application in open court on his client's instructions, for a wider approach to be adopted at the Inquest. It is now a matter of record that the Coroner ruled against Mr. Hodge, and correctly excluded evidence which did not directly relate to the identity of the deceased and the circumstances of death. After the Inquest, there was a third meeting between Moorfoot and the Attorney General, with Hodge in attendance, when the possibility of a Prerogative Writ (i.e., seeking an order from the Full Court to quash the Coroner's ruling) was briefly discussed and then discarded.
33.
In terms of effect on the Inquest, the Attorney General's discussions with Moorfoot had mattered little. In the course of the Commission's inquiry, the question was raised as to whether these discussions were proper. After careful consideration, I am satisfied that no impropriety can be imputed to the Attorney General or to anyone in respect of these discussions.
34.
In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the Attorney General's role in relation to death inquiries. He is not normally involved, but in a case of sufficient public importance, he may be requested by the Coroner, or on his own motion, appoint a Legal Officer to act as Coroner's Officer. Under Section 6 of the Coroner's Ordinance, it is for a Coroner to decide whether or not an Inquest should be held, but where the Coroner decides not to and the Attorney General is of the view that there is sufficient justification for the holding of an Inquest, he (the Attorney General) has powers under Section 88 of the Coroner's Ordinance to direct the Coroner to do so. Also, when the Inquest is concluded, and having reviewed the case, if the Attorney General is of the view that further investigations are required, he has powers under Section 20 of the Coroner's Ordinance to direct the Coroner to conduct such further investigations.
35. The circumstances of MacLennan's death and the publicity which followed it clearly amounted to a situation in which the Attorney General might properly involve himself to ensure that all the machinery prescribed by law was set in motion, so that the truth could be seen by the public to have been efficiently and justly uncovered.
36. The decision made by the Attorney General in relation to the Inquest to appoint Moorfoot to act as Coroner's Officer must be correct in these circumstances. Writing to Mrs. Elliott on 2 February 1980, the Attorney General said: "I have chosen a barrister who in my opinion has a strong independent outlook on life to be the Coroner's Officer."
"12 In his evidence before this Commission, the Attorney General described Moorfoot as having "considerable experience, strong-minded, dispassionate, fair-minded." Moorfoot gave evidence before this Commission. I was impressed by his honesty, directness and fair-minded approach. Moorfoot's independence of mind and integrity cannot in my view be called into question. It is clear from the evidence that in his discussions with Mr. Moorfoot, the Attorney General was fully aware of Moorfoot's independence and experience.
37. The Attorney General's frequent contacts with Moorfoot after his appointment as Coroner's Officer was in my view not improper. The Attorney General in his evidence pointed out that in view of the public disquiet, it would have been a serious matter if MacLennan was murdered. Therefore, if evidence of murder began to emerge, then decisions would have to be taken as to what to do, for example, bringing in other police forces to investigate, and because of the pressure of time, he wanted to do what he could to assist in bringing in overseas experts on ballistics, etc., so that the Inquest need not be adjourned. His suggestions to Moorfoot to interview various people were clearly aimed at ensuring a full investigation. I find nothing wrong in contacts between Moorfoot and the Attorney General on such matters.
38. The discussions relating to the width of the enquiries were however of a less clear-cut nature. The Attorney General, Moorfoot and Hodge were members of the same Chambers involved in a public inquiry in which all three had their respective responsibilities. In my view it was not wrong for lawyers to discuss between themselves the interpretation of the Ordinance as to how wide the enquiries should be. It was also clear in the circumstances that the public disquiet would only be allayed by a full and open inquiry. However, the situation contained an inherent danger that views expressed by the Attorney General could be pressed before the Coroner through the Coroner's Officer without the benefit of arguments in open forum. But I find no evidence that the Attorney General pressed his views in
12 See Commission File A, page 138BR.