}
(b)
SECRET
-4-
The Working Methods of the Commission of Inquiry
Probably the root cause of the inordinate length of time this
Inquiry is taking is the combination of a non-assertive
Commissioner and an aggressive and strong-willed Counsel
to the Commission, The Commissioner was prepared to assert himself whilst Nelligan was Counsel (witness Appendix B which contains part of the transcript of those hearings). Since
Beveridge, QC took over as Counsel Yang J. has adopted a
somewhat subdued role. This has manifested itself for
example in the Commissioner's apparent unwillingness to rule
on the relevance of issues and evidence, but a more mundane
example of the extent of his condition is his refusal to rule
on the order of cross-examination of witnesses by Counsel.
A Commission of Inquiry should never be judged by the standards of the Court-room but the standards that are expected
nowadays were laid down by the Salmon Report on Tribunals of Inquiry (Cmnd. 3121). The Commissioner and his Counsel
have expressely adopted this model the latter opining in his
opening address to the Inquiry:
"Ihave quoted at length from the Salmon Report, because
since the date when it was published it has been the
accepted guide to the best way in which Commissions
of Inquiry should be conducted within the English system
of law. "
The performance of the Commission has been measured against
the Salmon Report in Appendix C wherein five cardinal
principles of that Report are summarised and the manner in
which this Commission has been conducted is contrasted with
them. To a large extent the Salmon Report procedure, which
is designed to promote efficacy and avoid injustice in the
conduct of Inquiries, appears to have been ignored by this
Inquiry.
SECRET