175
Though I suspected all along that the public would never hear the truth from official quarters, I decided after much consideration to cooperate and make a statement to the Coroner's Officer, Assistant Divisional Superintendent Marcus Pelly. It proved a waste of a whole morning, because no part of my statement saw the light of day at the inquest. It was among those rejected by the Coroner as "irrelevant".
As I had mentioned both to the Attorney General and to Mr. Pelly, the incident in which John MacLennan was to be set up by the S.I.U., I imagine that this Senior Inspector must also have been interviewed. I should now like to ask the Attorney General whether my allegation was followed up. Or did he dismiss this serious allegation as mere "gossip and tittle-tattle", as stated in his press conference? . . .
In this connection I have been informed by several individuals, who were interviewed by members of the S.I.U., that questions put to them included questions related to the homosexuality of "frighteningly high-ranking members" of the Police and Judiciary.
With my knowledge of all this intrigue going on, am I to shut my eyes to save the skins of higher officials than John MacLennan by acquiescing in what has happened? . . .”
(h)
The Attorney General's Press Release
88.
The Attorney General decided to reply to Mrs. Elliott's questions. On 19 June 1980, he issued a Press Release drafted in consultation with the Secretary for Information. The statement reads in part:-
89.
"5.
45
Mrs. Elliott knows perfectly well the answer to this question which contains the innuendo that I did nothing, and also that perhaps Inspector MacLennan was set up. So far as the latter allegation is concerned she wrote on 29 January: 'XYZ was shocked and refused to set up the crime.' She said the same in her statement to Mr. Pelly. So far as the innuendo that I failed to followed up her allegation is concerned, the facts are that on 2 February I wrote to Mrs. Elliott as follows: . . .”
Then he quoted his letter in full. For the present purpose it is necessary to refer to only the following passage which relates to Fulton (then still known as XYZ):—
"This leads me to Mr. XYZ about whom you spoke in confidence to me. Since then his name has been openly brought to my attention by Mr. . . . and Mr. . . . so that I consider I am no longer bound by the terms of confidentiality I gave to you. Following our meeting, through XYZ's lawyer Mr. . . ., whose name you provided to me, I asked XYZ to come privately to discuss the matter with my own assistant. I had in mind that if he were prepared to repeat what you told me he had said to you, the matter could then be taken forward from there. However, XYZ decided that he did not wish to be interviewed by my assistant and told him so via Mr.... (lawyer). Instead he provided in the same way a written statement he had made which denies that he was asked to frame anybody. Despite this I have told the Coroner's Officer that in my opinion he must see XYZ himself in the absence of any police and get to the bottom of this conflict between what XYZ apparently said to you and the written statement he has made. The Coroner's Officer tells me that the Coroner has directed him to do this and I have no doubt it will be done."
90.
The following morning saw very prominent coverage of the Attorney General's statement, and a heated reply from Mrs. Elliott who was quoted by one English language newspaper as having said that his statement was "superficial and shallow", and that he should "speak straight out instead of hiding behind little matters." This served to fuel further public debate. Mrs. Elliott in the next few days called for the "ban on Inspector XYZ" speaking out in public to be lifted (there was in fact no "ban"). The Commissioner of Police through his Chief Information Officer replied in the press that Inspector XYZ was free to speak if he wished. Fulton in evidence said that he thought that the Commissioner of Police was unaware that Over had asked him (Fulton) not to speak to anyone about the matters contained in the statement taken on 22 May 1980. Nonetheless, he took the Commissioner's public statement to mean that he was free to speak if permission was sought in accordance with Police General Orders. It is necessary here to state that there was no truth in any suggestion that Fulton had been "gagged" by the police, and even Fulton had not thought that he would be prohibited from speaking out if an application were made in accordance with normal police procedure. Howard Lindsay (then away from Hong Kong) wrote in the next day or two, to two English language newspapers in which he set out his version of the Fulton allegation, and for the first time, disclosed Fulton's identity to the media. This letter was published in full on 30 June 1980 and 1 July 1980 by the two papers in succession. Fulton felt that it was time he spoke for himself (see sub-section (i) below).
91.
As can be seen, the Attorney General's statement of the 19 June 1980 was largely taken up by the reproduction of a letter which he had written to Mrs. Elliott on the 2 February 1980. The passage in the letter which Inspector Fulton took objection to was: "XYZ decided that he did not wish to be interviewed by my Assistant and told him so via Mr. . . . (Lawyer). Instead he provided in the same way a written statement he had made which denies that he was asked to 'frame' anybody.” Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Attorney General's statement of the 19 June 1980, which dealt with the allegation made by XYZ did not, however, allay Fulton's misapprehension because it did not record the position as it pertained in June 1980.
45
Commission Exhibit No. B199 reproduced in full at Appendix 48.