408
11. I WISH TO MAKE TWO FURTHER MATTERS CLEAR. FIRST, I NOTE THAT MRS ELLIOTT HAS SUGGESTED I APPEAR TO +HAVE ASSUMED THE ROLE OF JUDGE AND JURY IN THE CASE OF MACLENNAN.+ AS I HAVE EXPLAINED
ON TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, I HAVE A STATUTORY DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE INQUEST INTO MR MACLENNAN SHOULD BE RE-OPENED. TO AVOID THAT DECISION WOULD BE A CLEAR ABROGATION OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES. I GAVE MY REASONS AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ON MAY 23RD BUT I MADE IT CLEAR IF NEW EVIDENCE BECAME AVAILABLE I WOULD RECONSIDER THE MATTER.
12. SECONDLY, SO FAR AS THE DECISION TO PROSECUTE MR MACLENNAN WAS CONCERNED, I MADE IT ON WHAT I REGARD AS STRONG EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. NO DOUBT THAT EVIDENCE, HAD THE CASE BEEN TRIED, WOULD HAVE BEEN TESTED IN CROSS-EXAMINATION IF MR MACLENNAN HAD DECIDED TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY. I MADE THE DECISION KNOWING OF MRS ELLIOTT'S SECOND-HAND ALLEGATIONS AND OF THE FACT, WHICH SHE AND HE HAD BOTH SPECIFICALLY STATED, THAT INSPECTOR XYZ HAD REFUSED TO DO WHAT WAS ALLEGEDLY ASKED. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST INSPECTOR MACLENNAN HAD COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE INVESTIGATION. THIS INVESTIGATION LED TO THE CONVICTION OF ANOTHER MAN (NOTHING TO DO WITH RHKPF) WHO PLEADED GUILTY TO HOMOSEXUAL OFFENCES.
TIME: 1840 HOURS / JUNE 19, 1980 / AL
I
E