173
78.
Answer:
Well, I think it wouldn't be a proper thing, frankly, for me to comment on what might or might not have impelled the jury to whatever verdict they arrived at. My task was to review the evidence, look at it hard and cold and long, and having done that make up my mind whether there were matters that required inquiry in respect of his death. As I told you, I am totally satisfied now that he committed suicide and that there was no one else therefore involved in that.
Question: Does that then mean, as far as you are concerned, the case is totally closed?
Answer: On the evidence that there is, and I think I can say I've seen every single bit of evidence, yes.
Question: They jury in its decision has open verdict. Now you have said it's suicide. Are you over-ruling the verdict?
Answer: No, it's not a question of overruling it. The jury were obviously totally entitled to come to whatever conclusion they felt to be, in their case, the proper one. What I am telling you is what conclusion I have come to as a result of a long hard look at the evidence. Not in the heat and emotion and drama of the inquest but quietly reading it and looking at it, and making the necessary inquiries. I think there's one thing. But perhaps it's better. I mustn't comment really on the jury.
Question: Which conclusion holds for you though, yours or theirs?
Answer:
The verdict is the jury's verdict. But what I'm saying is that the inquest is not going to be re-opened and the reason why it's not is I can see no evidence pointing to anything other than suicide and the evidence of suicide is overwhelming.
The Attorney General's press conference was widely covered in the newspapers the next day. His Press Release was reproduced in full in The Sun. The South China Morning Post gave long direct quotes from what was said during the conference. Nearly every paper gave prominence to the Attorney General's statement that there was overwhelming evidence at the Inquest which showed that MacLennan had committed suicide, and they placed that comment side by side with a reference to the jury's Open Verdict at the Coroner's Inquest. The gist of the questions and answers quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, though reported, was not given equal prominence in the press.
79.
It created an uproar. Mrs. Elliott was reported as saying, “How dare he say the jury is wrong- what is the purpose of putting a jury there if he does not want to hear the results?"35 Dr. L. K. Ding, the Chairman of the Christian Industrial Committee was similarly quoted, "I'm puzzled, because the jury's verdict should be the final verdict. If not, then why have a jury at the inquest at all?”36 He was also reported as having said, "If the Attorney General had the final say in the matter and was satisfied that it was a case of suicide, why go through the trouble of ordering a coroner's hearing in the first place?"37 The strongest outburst came from Mr. Tony Pannell, the foreman of the three jurors at the Inquest. He delivered a point by point challenge of the various matters in the evidence cited by the Attorney General in support of his conclusion that there was overwhelming evidence of suicide. Mr. Pannell ended his letter to the press by declaring, "LONG LIVE THE JURY SYSTEM."38
80. Faced with such public furore, the Attorney General issued another statement (which was published in the newspapers on 3 June 1980) explaining once again, his decision not to re-open the inquest:—
81.
"In considering whether or not to do so in the MacLennan case, I read not only the 160 or so pages of depositions and the previous statements of those witnesses, but also the statements of some 40 other witnesses whom the coroner did not call because he ruled that their evidence was not relevant to his legal task as coroner.
In any case where one is deciding whether a number of items of circumstantial evidence drive one to a conclusion or not, it is necessary to consider all the evidence taken together and not merely to see whether each item could be explicable on other grounds if it stood alone.
Having considered all the evidence in this way, I was, and I remain, completely satisfied that no useful purpose could be served by re-opening the inquest, because, in my opinion, taken together, the evidence of suicide was overwhelming.
As I made clear at that press conference, I did not overturn or set aside the verdict of the jury, nor would I have the power to do so.'
»39
The Attorney General's further explanations did little to quell the public disquiet. There continued to be questions and criticisms directed at the Attorney General. The Attorney General did not answer these questions or criticisms. He hinted that the foreman of the jury could be guilty of contempt of court in revealing jury room's secret4o, he reiterated his earlier statement that he would not comment on the jury's verdict and he asked to be trusted to do his job honestly and fairly.41 On that last note, the Attorney General retreated from the public debate for the time being.
82. The public debate nevertheless continued. The Bar Committee of the Hong Kong Bar Association in a carefully worded statement, published on 8 June 1980, said:—-
35 See the Sun 24 May 1980.
36 See the Star 24 May 1980.
37 See the Hong Kong Standard 24 May 1980.
38 See the South China Morning Post 1 June 1980.
39
See the South China Morning Post 3 June 1980.
40 See the Hong Kong Standard 5 June 1980.
41
See the South China Morning Post 6 June 1980.