TNAG-0003-FCO40-39-Commission-of-Enquiry-into-the-Kowloon-disturbances-addition-1968 — Page 101

I

y

12

)-

Is

ch

e-

ns

pt

m

tly

ts,

nd

1-

PART V PERSONS INVOLVED

81

299. Mr. SANGUINETTI, as Counsel, secured from Mrs. ELLIOTT during her evidence agreement to his statement that he had shown this letter to other lawyers, an action which obviously gave currency to the allegations contained in it and indicates, in our view, that he was disposed to give the contents of the letter some credence. In these circumstances, he had an obligation. As the courts have recognized, primarily in connection with misprision cases, the individual has a public duty to bring to the attention of the proper authorities a serious crime of which he has material information. Mrs. ELLIOTT's letter alleges a criminal con- spiracy of a grave nature, yet this duty was not discharged either by Mrs. ELLIOTT or by Mr. SANGUINETTI. By reason of his legal qualifications, the latter's failure is more regrettable than that of Mrs. ELLIOTT who, in such a matter, might reason- ably have expected more responsible guidance from a member of the legal profession.

300. Mrs. ELLIOTT volunteered to give evidence before the Commission and, through her legal advisers, we were provided with a proof of her evidence. In this she said that she was reluctant to reveal the identity of the individual who had 'warned (her) for fear of victimization', and also went on to indicate some lack of confidence in the police; this was considerable expanded by her in answer to questions from her own counsel, and additional particulars were introduced at this time, making the point that she had given publicity to her accusations, the suggestion being apparently that she was a likely target for a police 'frame up' and that general distrust of the police was a contributory factor to the riots.

301. Counsel for the police, in the course of a lengthy cross-examination, produced a considerable amount of correspondence intended apparently to show; (a) that, whilst on occasions Mrs. ELLIOTT did convey information to the police which was helpful to them in their pursuit of crime, she frequently withheld essential information and, on numerous occasions, showed a marked hostility to the police as a whole; (b) that her ill-will towards them was quite impervious to the presentation of facts and figures which showed that, in general, they were doing their duty to the best of their ability; and (c) that the strained relations between her and the police were widely known and would make her a likely instrument for use by anyone who merely desired to injure the general reputation of the police.

302. In the course of this examination Mrs. ELLIOTT was asked to indicate what was the source of the allegation about a plot at Mong Kok. At first she declined and indeed told us that she knew she would never reveal it; then, follow- ening arguments by her own counsel and counsel to the Commission, she apparently ies changed her mind and said that she thought she might be prepared to do so in closed session but wished to consult her solicitor first. Having done so, we were told, at the end of a session, that she was willing to give information 'in camera' and that it was highly material to our Inquiry. When we returned next morning