216
Mr. Duffy was telexed by the Commission that he should contact the Commission upon his next arrival in Hongong, and from the Commission's point of view by that stage, in view of the holiday period, early January 1981 was stated to be the most suitable.
8. On 5 January 1981, the Commission were advised by the Immigration Department that Mr. Duffy had just entered Hong Kong at Kai Tak Airport. The Commission made every possible endeavour to establish Mr. Duffy's whereabouts in Hong Kong, by telephoning the contact telephone numbers previously referred to. The Commission finally ascertained from Mr. Peter Wong that Mr. Duffy was not intending to stay in Hong Kong, but that he was merely effectively in transit, although he had physically passed through the Immigration Authorities. Mr. Wong advised the Commission that it was Mr. Duffy's intention to leave Hong Kong that same evening. He mentioned Bangkok as a likely destination, and accordingly the Commission made enquiries of all departure flights for Bangkok that same day.
9.
Because Mr. Duffy had still made no contact with the Commission, not even by telephone, the Commission then decided to attempt to serve a Subpoena on him personally. One of the Commission's Solicitors, Mr. R. M. Burton, went to Kai Tak Airport, but was advised by the Immigration Department that Mr. Duffy, and a male travelling companion, had passed through Immigration some five minutes previously. Mr. Burton was advised that Mr. Duffy was bound for Bangkok. As he was approaching the Boarding Gate, Mr. Duffy recognized Mr. Burton, stopped, and moved away into the neighbouring Cafeteria or Bar Section. After several moments Mr. Duffy then walked purposefully towards the Boarding Gate. Mr. Burton approached him and advised him that he had instructions to serve a Subpoena on him, but Mr. Duffy made it quite clear to Mr. Burton from what he said to him, and from his demeanour, that he was refusing to accept service. Mr. Duffy said that he had no intention of being stopped in his intended journey to Bangkok, and although he was touched with the Subpoena by Mr. Burton, and was advised that this was being served upon him, Mr. Duffy deliberately attempted to avoid such service, made a dash past Mr. Burton, and strode through the Boarding Gate, despite the efforts of Mr. Burton to stop him. Mr. Duffy shouted back that the Subpoena should be served on either his Office, or on his Solicitors. Mr. Duffy advised Mr. Burton that his Solicitor was Mr. Ian MacCallum (of Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist, Solicitors, Hong Kong). Mr. Duffy also shouted: "I won't be returning to Hong Kong". He, and his friend, then boarded the plane.
10.
Following this incident, on 7 January 1981, an Order for Substituted Service was made by the Commissioner. The Witness Summons was accordingly served, as Mr. Duffy had indicated it should be, upon his Solicitors. The Commission also served a Witness Summons at his Office address (Addinall Investments Limited, 806 Swire House, Hong Kong). On 16 January 1981, Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist advised the Commission's Solicitors by letter, that they had received no instructions from Mr. Duffy related to this Commission.
11.
Shortly after the Substituted Service had been effected by the Commission, Mr. Duffy began a series of numerous telex or telephone contacts with the Commission, almost exclusively to Mr. Burton, for a period lasting some two months. During this period, Mr. Duffy kept insisting that he was willing to assist the Commission, in whatever way he could, but nonetheless he made continual pre-conditions before he would return to Hong Kong. These pre-conditions were stated by Mr. Duffy in a telex to the Commission's Solicitors on 15 January 1980, and included not only the usual travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance for overseas Witnesses, but also Mr. Duffy demanded compensation for loss of earnings, and undertakings from the Commission that in no circumstances was he to be hindered from leaving Hong Kong upon the completion of his evidence, irrespective of the nature of same, and that he would "not be further harrassed by Immigration or Police etc.", and that he would not be taken into custody during his stay. Whilst the Commission's Solicitors made every effort to secure Mr. Duffy's arrival in Hong Kong by means of prolonged discussions and communications with him for a period of some 8 weeks from the service of the said Substituted Summons, certain assurances and undertakings which Mr. Duffy demanded of the Commission could not be given, and although, on 3 March 1981, Mr. Duffy withdrew his pre-condition related to compensation for loss of earnings, the Commission considered that Mr. Duffy's general behaviour and attitude throughout this period was indicative of a general unwillingness by Mr. Duffy to co-operate with the Commission, and to embarrass them. Mr. Duffy is the only Witness to have failed to give evidence before the Commission, having been served with a Witness Summons.
12. On 27 March 1981, the Commission were advised by Mr. Adrian Huggins, Counsel, that he had received instructions to act for Mr. Duffy through Mr. Duffy's instructed Solicitors, Messrs. John Ip & Co. It was apparent to the Commission from speaking with Mr. Huggins on 13 April 1981 (he having been out of the Colony for much of the intervening period), that Mr. Duffy was still seeking the same assurances from the Commission, namely that if he came to Hong Kong to be interviewed by the Commission, and to give evidence before it, he would not be arrested upon his arrival. Mr. Huggins was advised by the Commission that they were not prepared to give any assurances to Mr. Duffy, nor to offer him any deals. The Commission have, since that date, heard nothing further from Mr. Duffy, nor his legal advisers.
13.
The Commission also considers that Mr. Duffy was attempting to further embarrass the Commission, having learnt from Mr. Richard Bellord, a News Reader and Sub-Editor of TVB, that Mr. Duffy had been passing copies of various communications he had received from the Commission's Solicitors to the Press and media (namely TVB), obviously with a view to having these communications made public.