SECRET
-8-
are easily made and whether proved or
not it is those allegations that can do immeasurable damage to
the reputations of the persons concerned. The usual course for
avoiding this kind of "trial by innuendo" is to only allow such
accusations to be traversed in private session. If they are
proved (and relevant) to deal with them in the Commissioner's
report. If they are not proved or are irrelevant no mention is
made in the report. This procedure has not been adopted in
the MacLennan Inquiry.
There are instances in which, it appears, there has been
less than a scrupolous regard
for allowing all sides of an issue to be explored. One example
follows. The AG's problems with the MacLennan case for the
most part date from Fulton's accusation that the AG deliberately
misled the public. Two days before Fulton was due to give
evidence his solicitor, Mr. Burns, let slip to the Commission's
solicitors that the AG had telephoned him, Burns, at the time
Fulton was to issue his press statement (in which the allegation
that the AG has misled the public was to be made) and suggested
to Burns that the press statement as drafted should not be
issued because of possible contempt of court (the CAPO
investigation of Fulton's complaint regarding the SIU was then
underway) or libel on the AG personally. Burns was interposed
in the witness list and called before Fulton, In the course of
cross-examination by counsel for the AG's Chambers, Burns
said that although he thought at the time that the AG may have
been trying to suppress Fulton's draft press release for personal
motives in retrospect he considered that the AG's reasons (with which he disagreed) we re genuinely due to concern regarding possible contempt of court and/ or libel. He further conceded
that such conduct was not improper and in the circumstances of
the CAPO case, fair. Beveridge, QC cross-examined Burns
and put it to him that the suggestion of the AG of possible contempt was "palpably absurd" and that the AG was "using the
SECRET