1
CONFIDENTI AL
22. Q. ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS SOME POLICE OFFICERS HAVE WISHED
TO TAKE LIBEL ACTION AGAINST MRS ELLIOTT AND PERMISSION HAS
BEEN REFUSED. IF POLICE OFFICERS, FOR EXAMPLE, MESSRS BROOKS AND QUINN DO APPLY, WILL GOVERNMENT REFUSE PERMISSION ?. IF SO, WHY ?.
A. IT IS A MATTER FOR MR BROOKS OR QUINN (OR ANYONE ELSE)
TO APPLY TO THE GOVERNOR FOR PERMISSION TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION
AGAINST ANY PERSON IN MATTERS SUCH AS THIS (CSR475). IF SUCH AN APPLICATION IS MADE, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE USUAL WAY. OBVIOUSLY, UNTIL AND IF SUCH AN APPLICATION IS MADE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONSIDER IT, AND CANNOT POSSIBLY PREDICT THE OUTCOME OF IT.
23. Q. WHAT WAS THE COST OF THE INQUIRY ?. DOES GOVERNMENT
THINK IT MONEY WELL SPENT ?.
A. THE COST OF THE INQUIRY IS ESTIMATED AT AROUND HONG KONG
IDLLARS 16 MILLION IN DIRECT EXPENDITURE. AS TO WHETHER IT WAS
WELL SPENT, REFER TO THE FINAL PART OF THE COMMISSIONER'S SUMMARY (PARAS 106 110).
24. Q. WILL ANY ACTION BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF JUDGE DANIELL, WHOM
THE COMMISSION IDENTIFIES AS THE ORIGINATOR OF THE ''FRAME UP**
THEORY, STATING ALSO THAT HE HAD NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR IT (PARA 27 OF THE SUMMARY) ?.
A. THE JUDICIARY IS, OF COURSE, INDEPENDENT, AND THE CHIEF
JUSTICE IS THE HEAD OF THE JUDICIARY. IT IS THEREFORE
A MATTER FOR HIS CONSIDERATION.
MACLEHOSE
MINIMAL
HK & GD
LEGAL ADVISERS
COPIES TO:
HONG KONG GOVT OFFICE
- 5-
CONFIDENTIAL