198
(g) Mrs. Elliott's press release
On 17 June 1980 Mrs. Elliott issued a press release criticizing the Attorney General for assuming "the role of both judge and jury."
99.
(h) The Attorney General's press release
100. On 19 June the Attorney General issued another press release in reply. In the press release he quoted a letter he had written to Mrs. Elliott on 2 February in which he said that Inspector Fulton (then known only as XYZ) had denied that he was asked to frame anybody. 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 Fulton's 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 knowing as I do what the Attorney General knew at the time of making his statement, I am still of the view that the statement implied that Fulton had withdrawn his allegations, which was not the case at all.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 Elliott's allegations, but such a statement would carry little weight when he implied that Fulton had withdrawn his allegations.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 omissions in his public
statement.
(i) Fulton's press release
101.
Fulton felt that his complaint against the SIU had been misrepresented. He therefore sought the assistance of Mr. A. Burns, an Assistant Solicitor of Johnson, Stokes & Master who drafted a press statement for him for publication on 2 July 1980. In the draft were the following passages:—
102.
"In that statement, the Attorney General referred to a letter written by him to Mrs. Elliott on 2 February this year in which he stated, inter alia, that our client had made a written statement which denied that he was asked to "frame" anybody.
"The statements of the Attorney General and Mrs. Elliott, taken together suggest that our client had made serious allegations of impropriety concerning the conduct of individual members of the SIU and had subsequently withdrawn those allegations. This is not the case and our client is concerned that his involvement in the matter has therefore been misrepresented."
The draft was sent to the Police Public Relations Wing for clearance, as in accordance with normal police procedure. The Police sought the Attorney General's advice. Having considered the draft the Attorney General personally telephoned Mr. Burns and said in effect that it would be irresponsible to publish the statement as the publication of the draft might well be a contempt of court or a libel upon the Attorney General. Whilst disagreeing with the Attorney General, Mr. Burns thought it prudent to consult Mr. Charles Ching, Q.C., who confirmed his view that the publication of the draft was neither a contempt nor a libel. But in order to avoid any suggestion of contempt or libel, the draft relating to the Fulton complaint was redrafted to read, in part:-
"Our client has never denied this instruction. Our client never complied with such an instruction and insofar as the impression has been created that he made those allegations and subsequently withdrew them, that impression is false.".
103. This passage does not differ in substance from the two original draft passages quoted above. I find that the Attorney General was wrong in law in his view that the draft statement was capable of being a contempt of court as well as a libel upon him personally. In the circumstances, and bearing in mind the high office he holds, I cannot help but feel that he was unwise in personally telephoning a junior solicitor on a controversial matter such as this. Although the Attorney General had not fully researched into the law, he was, however, taking a specific legal stand with Burns. Any reasonable person would assume that the Attorney General knew the law, and legal opinions, however tentative, which fell from his lips were not taken lightly. In the circumstances, although Burns did not think that the Attorney General's views had merit, he (Burns) and his colleagues in the firm were sufficiently concerned to consult Leading Counsel. In his evidence, Burns thought that the Attorney General was using the weight of his Office to pursue a personal matter. I accept that this was a natural reaction, but I do not find that Attorney General in fact intended to use the weight of his Office in the manner suggested. However, it ought to have been foreseen by the Attorney General that such an impression was more than probable. In this instance the Attorney General committed an error of judgment. I have no reason to criticize his motivation.