IS
2
ed
af
30
lic
ne
a
CS.
be
ne
II.
he
'111
gh
id
ch
elf
he
be
at
at
ul
333 2 3 3 2.8 3 7 7
at
ot
by
in
a
ey
1
PART V PERSONS INVOLVED
79
wanted to demonstrate they could but they would not have the support of the Reform Club, we are satisfied that it was not the intention of Mr. BERNACCHI or Mr. WONG to encourage any such demonstrations or any breach of the law. We think that Mr. BERNACCHI endeavoured to channel off, in the direction of a public meeting at the Stadium at a later date, the current enthusiasm of these young people for street demonstration. Whether, in view of what happened on the two succeeding nights, that meeting would itself have achieved a valuable purpose or might indeed have led to some trouble of its own is a matter on which it is not profitable to speculate. It may be that, looking back on the occasion with hind- sight, Mr. BERNACCHI himself might feel some regret that he did not do more to discourage or dissuade these young people from going out into the streets at this juncture because, whatever was said to them, the fact remains that some of them were found guilty of participating in the subsequent disorders. We also feel that, whatever attitude Mr. BERNACCHI had taken at the meeting, it is doubtful whether it could have made any great difference to what followed. For some, the attraction of taking a prominent part in further demonstrations was likely to be far stronger than the minor glory of assisting at the proposed meeting in the Government Stadium and LO Kei was already in Kowloon preparing for a continuation and expansion of the previous night's activities. Mr. BERNACCHI and Mr. WONG cannot be blamed for this situation, and we think that, on the evidence before us, they must be exonerated from any responsibility for the demonstrations and the riots that followed.
295. The problem of Mrs. ELLIOTT is more complex, and, although much of her conduct is really peripheral to the main purpose and substance of our Inquiry, the amount of publicity given to it, which either indicates or has caused consider- able public interest, requires that it be dealt with. Our proceedings have indeed been complicated and unjustifiably delayed and prolonged by what may be called the 'Mong Kok allegation' in which she figured so prominently. The allegation, traceable to LO Kei, was to the effect that Mrs. ELLIOTT had paid individuals to participate in the riots. Virtually from the outset of our proceedings, Mr. ROLPH, the Acting Senior Assistant Commissioner who opened the police evidence, made it quite clear that the police at no stage had given any credence whatever to this allegation and counsel for the police took every opportunity to reinforce that attitude. Mrs. ELLIOTT, however, both in person and through her counsel sought to take the matter further and to give currency and credence to an allegation that the police or some members of the police at Mong Kok Police Station had plotted to throw 'blame on her' for the riots and that the allegation by LO Kei was inspired and elicited from him for this purpose. Her main basis for this contention lay in her story that some time after she reached her residence in her school in Prince Edward Road on the evening of the 6th, between 11 p.m. and midnight, she was told by the headmaster that someone at the door had a message for her. The headmaster seems, however, to have treated the matter as one not requiring her presence or her immediate attention; he merely passed on to her a message from
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.