168
51.
in part:-
52.
With commendable patience and lucidity, Mr. Duffy, on 27 March 1980, replied to Mrs. Elliott's query_ying
15
"You appear to have misunderstood what I said to you when we discussed this case with the Attorney General. As prosecuting counsel I am forbidden by the rules of my profession from interviewing witnesses for the Crown, and I did not do so in this case. What I told you was that I had personally scrutinized the file including the statements which the Chinese police officers had taken from the witnesses who had made allegations against MacLennan. The statements containing allegations against MacLennan had been taken with a view to a different prosecution, and not specifically for the purpose of gathering evidence against MacLennan. The decision to charge MacLennan was taken in these Chambers and not by the
Police."
Mrs. Elliott did not accept Duffy's explanation. In evidence before this Commission, she steadfastly stuck to her own version of the meeting. So I had to hear Duffy's evidence, which I did. The most relevant parts of Duffy's evidence is reproduced below:-
16
"... As instructed by the AG I brought along the prosecution file in respect of the intended prosecution of John Richard MacLennan on charges of gross indecency. After introductions the AG advised Mrs. Elliott that the discussion must be regarded as confidential and that he did not want her to disclose any matters that might be revealed in the course of it. This she promised to do.
The prosecution file was then placed in front of Mrs. Elliott. The AG told her that I had been involved in the decision to prosecute and that I was familiar with the case. I explained to Mrs. Elliott that the file contained the statements of the witnesses which would have been used by the prosecution. I specifically explained that I had to make my assessment of the case from these statements which had been taken by Police Officers. I remember telling Mrs. Elliott in quite unequivocal terms that the statements had been taken by the Police and that it was on the basis of those that I had to decide whether to prosecute. Thus, I was later very surprised to receive her letter to me dated the same date as the meeting.
Mrs. Elliott did not peruse the file from cover to cover-she flicked through the pages of the file, at times pausing to glance at statements. I would be surprised if she was able to digest any of the contents. The statements were in the usual police form with the names and ages of the witnesses at the top of the first page in the typewritten part of the form. None of the statements was less than a page in length and one was 13 pages long. All of the witness statements were phrased in the first person.
There was also on the file a three-page summary of facts which had been prepared in case of guilty pleas being entered by MacLennan. That document listed the 8 charges that were to be proceeded with and the description of each charge is less than half a page. That summary of facts was phrased in the third person and the contents of the summary of each charge were similar this being the Police summary of the essential facts necessary for conviction and sentence.
As Mrs. Elliott was flicking through the file I felt sorry that she should have to read the sordid details of sexual perversion contained in the statements and I made some remark to the effect that all the statements contained the same kind of material. At the time she was looking at one of the long statements.
A remark was passed, by whom I cannot recall, that the witnesses were male prostitutes. I cannot recall Mrs. Elliott making any reference to triads. I cannot be sure whether any such remark was made but I think that if it had been I would have remembered that.
I told Mrs. Elliott that we had had to decide what were the prospects of a prosecution being successful and that that assessment was made from reading the file, assessing the credibility of proposed witnesses and applying one's experience. I told her about the witnesses who were believed to have attempted to blackmail Colin Logan and that the charges (including one of buggery which would have had to be tried in the High Court) which would have been based on the evidence of those witnesses were not brought.
Mrs. Elliott appeared to be rather confused and bemused. She didn't seem to be taking much in. She and the AG then had a discussion the subject of which I cannot now recall. My task at the meeting had been to show Mrs. Elliott the file and explain the situation to her and that I remember very clearly. The entire meeting lasted half an hour of less."
53. Mr. Duffy gave his evidence in a most convincing manner. He was calm and collected and answered all questions dispassionately and in a straight-forward manner. His high integrity, competence and honesty are obvious. I accept his evidence in full, which then leaves me with only one possible conclusion, namely, that Mrs. Elliott's recollection of the incident was faulty. But despite straightforward, and obviously honest, testimony by Duffy, during which Mrs. Elliott was herself present, she wrote to Duffy after the conclusion of his evidence in these terms:-
54.
17
"I was surprised and aggrieved at the MacLennan Enquiry that you supported the Attorney General's statement that I saw those long statements against John MacLennan, when I visited the Attorney General's office on 24 January 1980.
You know as well as I do that those were not the statements I was shown, but that in fact the eight statements I was shown were read through in a few minutes...
Only you can know why you are willing to support a statement which you know to be untrue. I did not expect you to do that, and even now it is not too late for you to admit that it was untrue. I expected to find more sense of honour, having myself been brought up to play a fair game."
In my opinion this letter was grossly improper and completely unjustifiable. Such obstinate and unreasoning suspicion in a person of her public standing is deprecated. I have had the opportunity to consider Mrs. Elliott's credibility. I shall state my findings on her credibility later in this Chapter.
15 Mr. J. Duffy's reply to Mrs. Elliott's query dated 27 March 1980 is reproduced at Appendix 41.
16
See Transcript pages 12012-12014.
17
See Mrs. Elliott's letter to Duffy dated 18 May 1981, reproduced at Appendix 42.