APPENDICES
APPENDIX NO. 11 (Contd.)
165
Her refusal to answer a question which we regard as material and which we have required her to answer-a refusal persisted in after ample opportunity for reflection--is a contempt of this Commission and must be treated as such. We are empowered to punish such contempt by sending the individual concerned to prison or imposing a fine. In the Australian case, to which our counsel has referred, the case of McGuinness v. The Attorney General of Australia, Mr. Justice RICH drew attention to the advantages, on occasions, of imposing a fine, since it confers very little of that aura of martyrdom which sometimes can be an attrac- tion to those, or some of those, tempted to commit this particular type of offence.
What course should we follow here?
Now to get the matter into its proper perspective, I think it is desirable to mention- though without attempting at this stage to evaluate in any way the accuracy or cogency of her evidence--to mention that throughout a number of days Mrs. ELLIOTT gave testimony here in the witness box, some of it under severe cross-examination, and during that time, whilst giving that evidence, which covered a very wide field of detail and incident, she never at any time showed any desire to act in defiance of this Commission or to do anything in contempt of it, other than this particular matter which is now before us. There was one unfortunate reference which was open to misinterpretation but that was satisfactorily cleared up, and any misunderstanding removed, last Friday morning.
Nevertheless to make such allegations as we have here, and then to withhold the in- formation which would enable us to enquire into, to test, to weigh and to determine the truth of the allegation is both a failure in her public duty and a defiance of the very purpose for which this Commission was appointed.
To initiate or propagate malicious rumour is an evil thing which can do great harm in a community. Conduct like this now before us gives free rein to rumour with all the evil consequences that can follow, if the rumour is untrue. And we cannot accept the attitude of mind that allows someone to level the gravest allegations against a group of police officers, about employing miscreants to participate in riots, whilst withholding the material which could lead to a conclusion whether any or all of them are guilty or innocent. We are also profoundly disturbed by what has happened yesterday afternoon and this morning, when it was, at first, claimed that Mrs. ELLIOTT had information of great importance, relating to our inquiry, which she was willing to give to us in camera but of which there had been no indication in the statement which had been furnished to the Commission, through her legal advisers: an offer which, whilst it was being considered by the Commission, was withdrawn this morning, when it was intimated that Mrs. ELLIOTT is now unwilling to furnish that information, either in open forum or in camera.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that in the present instance the real remedy and the most effective deterrent for conduct such as this must lie in public opinion which cannot condone but must repudiate, reject and condemn this conspiracy of silence; this making of allegations followed by the refusal to furnish the information which can determine their truth.
We do not think that to send Mrs. ELLIOTT to prison or to impose a fine on her, on this occasion, would serve any useful purpose. Having regard to her position, her age and her responsibilities, the matter is one which is probably to be approached more in sorrow and reproof than in anger, and for this contempt we will impose neither imprisonment nor fine, but we will send the offender from here to the bar of public opinion where she must meet the censure and repudiation of all those right-minded people who believe in the freedom of the innocent from the taint of unwarraned suspicion and in the principles of frankness and fair dealing in the affairs of men.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.