92.
176
hand
The statement in itself could be taken (and was taken) by the one person who was able to give evidence of what was actually said, namely Fulton, as misleading. The Attorney General's statement of the 19 June 1980 failed to correct the public misconception which the Attorney General clearly thought Mrs. Elliott was spreading. In June 1980, the Attorney General must have known that his letter to Mrs. Elliott of the 2 February 1980 had been overtaken by events, and he could not have failed to perceive that by omitting these subsequent events, he would be inviting contradictions from Fulton and Mrs. Elliott. Why then did he write in the way that he did?
93. follows:-
The Attorney General's reasons for drafting his public statement of the 19 June 1980 as he did were as
(1) that he, as well as the Secretary for Information, who assisted him in the drafting, felt that "the most sensible thing to do, rather than summarizing all the various steps that had been taken, was to produce the letter which I (the Attorney General) had written to her (Mrs. Elliott) very shortly after Inspector MacLennan's death so that it would be obvious to the public and would carry more conviction;'
46
(2) that in paragraph 7, he pointed out that he had referred to the Acting Commissioner of Police for investigation by CAPO, various matters relating to the conduct of SIU, including the alleged incident of XYZ. He felt that he could not have said that Fulton had made a number of statements subsequent to the one which he made on 28 January 1980, in which he denied that he was asked to "frame-up" anybody. He felt that it would be wrong to do so in the middle of a CAPO investigation;
(3) that despite the fact that he knew from Miss Beeson on 1 February 1980 that Fulton had considered that he was asked to "frame-up" MacLennan, he had omitted this fact from his letter to Mrs. Elliott because he had gone on to say
in his letter of 2 February 1980 that he would ask the Coroner's Officer "to get to the bottom of this conflict between what Fulton apparently said to you (Mrs. Elliott) and the written statement he has made.” He felt that he could have added nothing to his letter by referring to the conflict between Miss Beeson's version given on 1 February 1980 and Fulton's statement of 28 January 1980;
(4) that although he was aware that Mrs. Elliott's allegation was that of a “set-up" and that in his letter to Mrs. Elliott he had only referred to the denial by Fulton of a "frame-up", he felt that it would be “a misuse of English”47 if anyone reading his statement of 19 June 1980 omitting as it did Fulton's observations made subsequent to his statement of 28 January 1980, could have concluded that Fulton had not made any statement (written or otherwise), alleging either "frame-up" or "set-up". He felt that it was quite obvious that he had referred to CAPO the allegation of a "set-up";
(5) that because "we were there in the middle of the CAPO investigations, the very last thing that was desirable was that the details of what was said about set-up should be gone into in public. And anyone with half a grain of commonsense would recognize from the fact of the matter being-of that very matter being referred to CAPO, that the statement made to the Coroner would be investigated by CAPO in the course of their investigation; "48 and
(6) that "I am totally satisfied that any fair-minded person reading that, and knowing that a CAPO investigation was in train, would recognize that it was wrong to debate the tos and fros of what had been said about set-up and that my statement was related only to two things. Namely, whether the set-up had come to fruition, and whether or not I had taken any steps in relation to Mrs. Elliott's complaint.”49
94. I accept the Attorney General's concern that he should not say anything in public which would jeopardize the CAPO investigations then in train. However, his public statement of the 19 June 1980 cannot be anything but misleading, dealing as it did only with Fulton's denial that he had been asked to “frame-up" anybody. The Attorney General knew well that the allegation was that of a "set-up" but he omitted to deal with this allegation (which had been repeated by Miss Beeson on 1 February 1980 and by Fulton four times in his subsequent statements). I cannot accept his explanation that a fair reading of his statement would indicate that he was dealing with only two issues, namely, (i) whether the "set-up" had come to fruition, and (ii) whether or not he had taken any steps in relation to Mrs. Elliott's complaint. Giving his public statement the broadest and fairest interpretation that I can, and taking into account the Attorney General's knowledge of the nature of Fulton's allegation at the time of making his statement, I am still of the view that the statement implied that Fulton had withdrawn his allegations, which was not the case at all. I take the Attorney General's point that he was anxious to show the public that he had actually followed up Mrs. Elliott's allegations, but such a statement would carry little weight if he implied that Fulton had withdrawn his allegations. At a time when the Attorney General was clearly stressing the distinction between "set-up" and "frame-up" from as early as January 1980, I find it surprising that he should fail to make this very distinction in an important public statement. The public was therefore presented with a statement grossly misleading in a material respect. In coming to this view, I would make it clear that I do not question the Attorney General's proper motive, which was to prevent jeopardy to the CAPO investigations. However, I am constrained to criticize the Attorney General for this material omission in his public statement.
46 See Transcript page 11606 O.
47
See Transcript page 11997.
48 Also see Transcript page 11997. 49 See Transcript page 11998.
!
ļ