174
"... the Committee feels bound to express its concern that a situation arose where it may have been though Attorney General was impugning the jury's open verdict.
At the
While it is correct that the Attorney General did indicate that it would not be proper for him to comment on why the jury reached that verdict, his conclusion might nevertheless appear to suggest that the jury had come to an incorrect verdict.
The Committee believes that the Attorney General did not intend to make such suggestion, but in the Committee's view, it was most unfortunate that the reports of the press conference gave that impression.
The Committee feels that in general any public pronouncement which tends to undermine the public's faith in a jury's verdict or to affect adversely the attitude of future jurors and the quality of their deliberations ought to be avoided."42"
Propriety or otherwise of the Press Conference
83. I have already said that the Attorney General was correct in his decision that he had no power in law to re-open the Inquest. In view of the unusual features of the case and the very intense public interest, it was also right that the Attorney General should announce this decision in public and furthermore, explain it in public. The difficult question is how best this could be done, bearing in mind that he was the most senior law officer making an official statement to the public.
84. To announce his decision under Section 20 of the Coroner's Ordinance, the Attorney General was not required to give reasons. He was entitled in law to simply state that no further investigation was necessary, without going on to state there was overwhelming evidence of suicide. But to stop at that first part was clearly not satisfactory, because that would imply that all relevant material had been disclosed and upon such relevant material as disclosed the jury had returned an open verdict. Alternatively, he could have said, having reviewed all relevant material, including statements taken by Pelly and excluded by the Coroner, he came to the conclusion that no further investigation was necessary and he accordingly decided not to re-open the Inquest. Such an explanation would have been unimpeachable. The Attorney General, no doubt, genuinely felt there was overwhelming evidence of suicide, and he considered that by so stating that at the press conference, this would "set at rest the minds of the overwhelming majority of reasonable people.'
"43
85. Unfortunately, the result was the opposite. He had repeatedly said that he was not overruling the jury's verdict. But the question is not what the Attorney General said he was or he was not doing. The question is: what was the practical effect of what the Attorney General said he was or was not doing. In stating that there was overwhelming evidence of suicide he was by necessary implication impugning the jury's Open Verdict. For an open verdict is a verdict. It does not mean, as has been suggested by some, a lack of agreement and therefore no verdict at all. It means the jury agree (either unanimously or by majority) that there is not sufficient evidence supporting any of the other alternative verdicts, one of which being suicide.
86. The Attorney General had a proper motive in giving the press conference, and in stating his genuine conclusions as to the circumstances of MacLennan's death. He was clearly in a dilemma. He should have realized the undesirable effects of stating that there was overwhelming evidence of suicide. As a leading lawyer, he, more than anyone else, should have anticipated the charge that he was at least giving the impression that he had impugned the jury's verdict. His decision to say what he said at the press conference should have been made with that danger in mind. Once he had announced that there was overwhelming evidence of a suicide, the subsequent explanation that he was not impugning the jury's verdict was not likely to be accepted, and indeed it was not. He failed to appreciate that in so doing he would in fact be seen by the majority of reasonable people as using the weight of his high office to challenge the finality of the jury's verdict. The Attorney General has, therefore, made an error of judgment. In the light of the public disquiet at the time, the strong reactions that followed was a natural and understandable consequence of that error.
(g) Mrs. Elliott's Press Release
87. The next significant development in the continuing public debate after the Attorney General's press conference was yet another press conference on 17 June 1980. This time, it was held by Mrs. Elliott. Her written Press Release, reproduced in most of the newspapers in Hong Kong the following day, contained, inter alia, the following points: 44
"Since the Attorney General, in his press conference on the MacLennan Inquest, appeared to assume the role of both judge and jury, and failed to divulge the evidence of about 40 witnesses, this witness at any rate considers it to be in the interests of justice to make known relevant matters pertaining to the case...
In October 1979, three months before MacLennan's death, Mr. Howard Lindsay, then a Crown Counsel in the Attorney General's office, at great risk to himself, phoned to inform me that certain individual members of the S.I.U. had intimidated another Senior Police Inspector to try to "set-up" John MacLennan on homosexual charges. Despite this intimidation, the Inspector had refused to take part in any set up . . .
42
See the South China Morning Post 8 June 1980.
43
See Appendix 44 (Attorney General's minute of 22 April 1980).
44
See Mrs. Elliott's press statement distributed at her press conference in June 1980, reproduced in full at Appendix 47.
Page 165Page 166