WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1989
10
"THAT FILE COMPRISED STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES, TRANSCRIPTS OF TAPE RECORDINGS OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS AND OF A CONVERSATION WITH AN UNDERCOVER POLICE AGENT, AND A DETAILED POLICE COVERING REPORT.
"THIS MATERIAL WAS DELIVERED ΤΟ THE QUEEN'S COUNSEL WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ADVISE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE WITH WHICH MR HARRIS COULD BE CHARGED.
11
MR MATHEWS SAID THE QUEEN'S COUNSEL DELIVERED HIS WRITTEN OPINION ON MONDAY, MAY 1.
"HE WAS UNEQUIVOCAL IN HIS ADVICE. THAT ADVICE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO CRIME WITH WHICH MR HARRIS COULD BE CHARGED, MR MATHEWS SAID.
IN THE LIGHT OF THAT ADVICE, THE ATTORNEY DECIDED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR A PROSECUTION,
"
GENERAL
ARRIVING
REFERRING TO MRS TU'S QUESTION ON WHETHER IN DECISION THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE INTERESTS PUBLIC AND OF POSSIBLE VICTIMS, MR MATHEWS SAID SINCE HE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO CRIME WITH WHICH MR HARRIS COULD BE QUESTIONS DID NOT, IN THE EVENT, ARISE.
SAID HE
AT THE
OF THE ADVISED
CHARGED, THESE
OR BY
"CERTAIN SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT THE POLICE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS CASE WERE IMPROPERLY TERMINATED BY ME MR DUCKETT. THESE SUGGESTIONS ARE UNTRUE," HE SAID.
"THE PAPERS PRESENTED TO MR DUCKETT REVEALED THAT, PRIOR TO THAT DATE, THE POLICE HAD INTENDED TO TAKE CERTAIN STEPS ON APRIL 27.
"BUT BY THE TIME THE PAPERS WERE DELIVERED TO HIM, THE POLICE HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO DISCONTIUNE THE OPERATION PLANNED FOR APRIL 27.
I DID NOT CAUSE THE POLICE ACTION TO BE STOPPED AND, IN ANY EVENT, I SHOULD EMPHASISE THAT 1 N THE FINAL ANALYSIS OPERATIONAL DECISIONS ARE FOR THE POLICE, NOT FOR ME.
"FOLLOWING MY DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE, I NEVERTHELESS FORMED THE VIEW THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATTERS BEFORE ME, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR MR HARRIS TO CONTINUE то PERFORM HIS DUTIES AS A SENIOR CROWN COUNSEL.
AS
"I CONVEYED MY VIEWS TO THE SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE THE SECRETARY RESPONSIBLE FOR CIVIL SERVICE CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT. HE DECIDED THAT MR HARRIS SHOULD LEAVE THE GOVERNMENT'S SERVICE, AND ADVISED THAT THIS WOULD BEST BE ACHIEVED BY TERMINATING HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT.
+
"ON MAY 3, 1989 I INFORMED MR HARRIS OF THE DECISION MADE AND HE LEFT CHAMBERS THAT EVENING. HE HAS NOT PERFORMED ANY DUTIES SINCE THEN."
THERE REMAINED THEN THE QUESTION OF HIS POSITION AS A MEMBER OF THE HONG KONG BAR. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID AS A MATTER OF LAW IT WAS OPEN TO HIM AS WELL AS TO THE BAR TO APPLY TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY TO INQUIRE INTO A COMPLAINT BARRISTER.
AGAINST A
/IT HAD