166
With
any way. I find quite the reverse. At the second discussion, Moorfoot reported the Coroner's view which differ the Attorney General's, and there is no evidence that the Attorney General pursued the matter any further at this stage. Hodge did not accept this indication. In open forum, he submitted for the adoption of a wide approach so that all of Pelly's enquiries would come out into the open. It was only after the Inquest, and at the third discussion, that the possibility of a Prerogative Writ was briefly raised. This was the proper procedure to review an erroneous legal decision of the Coroner. In the event the possibility was not pursued. I therefore find that the Attorney General did not in any way attempt to improperly influence Moorfoot and the Coroner in their views as to the scope of the Inquest. I also find that in the light of the public disquiet prevailing at the time, he was justified in discussing (—and it was no more than discussing) the matter with Moorfoot and Hodge. The motivation of all concerned was clearly proper.
(e) Interview between the Coroner's Officer and Mrs. Elliott
39.
A few days before the Inquest was due to begin, Moorfoot interviewed Mrs. Elliott. Mrs. Elliott had informed the Attorney General that she was not going to tell the Police everything. Moorfoot was aware of this; he therefore invited Mrs. Elliott to give a statement to him as the Coroner's Officer. Mrs. Elliott went to Mr. Moorfoot's office at the New World Centre. By this date, she had already given a lengthy statement to Pelly. Moorfoot therefore asked her if she had anything to add to her statement. Mrs. Elliott said that she had not. Up to this point of their evidence, there was common ground between Moorfoot and Mrs. Elliott on the facts. However, from this point onwards, their recollections differ. Mrs. Elliott alleged in her evidence that Moorfoot then proceeded to attempt to convince her by producing various photographs and by telling her of the opinions of various pathologists and experts that MacLennan was a homosexual and had committed suicide. By this allegation, she implied that Moorfoot was improperly attempting to influence her at a time when she was due to give evidence before the Inquest. Moorfoot disagreed. His recollection was that Mrs. Elliott had asked him for details as to how MacLennan had died and he had explained to her the positions of the shots and indicated to her the opinions of experts available to him at the time. Moorfoot denied that he had attempted to influence Mrs. Elliott in any way as to the cause of death.
40. The expert opinions which were available to Moorfoot did, of course, contained views to the effect that the wounds found on MacLennan were consistent with self-infliction. Also, one of the pathologists did venture the view that MacLennan was homosexual.
41.
Since Mrs. Elliott had indicated in her statement to Pelly that she knew nothing of the circumstances of the death of MacLennan and had impliedly confirmed this by stating to Moorfoot that she had nothing to add, there was no harm in Moorfoot's explaining to her some of the details surrounding MacLennan's death. In the circumstances, even if she were to give evidence, it would not be on matters relating to the circumstances of MacLennan's death. It would therefore serve no purpose in influencing her. I find that Moorfoot did nothing more than present the gist of the opinions available to him. Mrs. Elliott's accusation that Moorfoot attempted to influence her, in these circumstances, appear to me to fly in the face of fact and reason. I have no hesitation in rejecting her criticisms of Moorfoot in toto.
f) The rulings at the Inquest
42.
When the Inquest opened on 29 February 1980, Mr. Downey applied for an adjournment to 3 March 1980. Mr. Downey stated that he had been unable to obtain certain instructions which he needed from MacLennan's parents. The Coroner granted an adjournment to 3 March 1980. When the Inquest re-opened, he began to hear submissions and evidence.
43.
Before evidence was adduced, the Coroner heard submissions from Counsel regarding the scope of the evidence to be put before the Inquest. Mr. Hodge, for The Royal Hong Kong Police, submitted that the Coroner should allow all the 83 statements taken by Superintendent Pelly to be put in evidence. Specifically, Hodge applied for a ruling that all the circumstances relating to MacLennan's dismissal in 1978 and his reinstatement, namely, the "Yuen Long Affair/Incident", and the allegations relating to whether or not MacLennan was "framed", that is, whether he was, as alleged, "hounded" to death by unscrupulous officers, or was driven to his death by his knowledge or guilt of homosexual activities. The Coroner did not make a ruling upon this submission, saying that "it was a matter of remoteness", and therefore it was impossible for him to give a blanket ruling, adding that Section 6 of the Coroner's Ordinance was subject to Rule 23 of the Coroner's Rules. However, in the course of the Inquest, the Coroner ruled inadmissible all evidence relating to the Yuen Long Incident, all evidence tending to show MacLennan's homosexuality, and all evidence relating to the Fulton allegations. Thus, 44 of the 83 statements taken by Pelly were excluded.
44.
The Coroner's rulings were based on his interpretation of Section 6 of the Coroner's Ordinance, as limited by Rule 23 of the Coroner's Rules. Rule 23 povides:-
"The proceedings and evidence at an inquiry shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following matters—
(a)
the identity of the deceased;
(b)
how, when and where the deceased came by his death;