~5~
and reported in the media). This approach is not only wrong, it is
unnecessary. Before (usually, long before) any witness gives evidence
before the Inquiry a statement is taken from him by the Commission's
Solicitors. The evidence he will give is known in advance and irrelevant
(particularly irrelevant though sensational) material can be discarded,
However, not only have witnesses been taken through irrelevant (and
sensational) evidence once in the witness box but witnesses have been
called whose ability to give any relevant evidence is extremely doubtfal.
Beveridge, Q.C, seems to consider the hearings to be an extension of the
investigative process which they are not. The investigations should
be conducted outside the hearings and only the refined (i.e, relevant)
product aired in the public hearings, And yet, if the Commissioner will
not interpret his terms of reference who is to say what is or is not
relevant ?
3.
As soon as it becomes apparent that a person's reputation or interesta
might be (adversely) affected by matters to be canvassed in public
hearing that person should be notified of the nature of the allegations
he will face. (This notification is usually referred to as a "Salmon Letter
The Commission's approach to the Salmon letter procedure can
most kindly be described as erratic, Some persons whose reputations (etc.)
would obviously come under fire received Salmon letters at the outset (e.g. the Commissioner of Police, Senior Inspector Fulton, Senior Inspector Trotman); others received them only after the damage had been done (in
the A.G.'s case by Beveridge himself); others have never received them
despite the fact that allegations have been made against them and are
being pursued,
SECRET
/ In his opening ̧‹