E.
THE CORONER'S INQUEST
164
(a) An Inquiry into the Inquest?
23.
10
Section 6 of the Coroner's Ordinance provides as follows:-
"Whenever any person dies suddenly, or by accident or violence, or under suspicious circumstances, or whenever the dead body of any person is found within the Colony or is brought into the Colony, a Coroner may, if he considers that an inquiry is necessary, inquire into the cause of and the circumstances connected with the death of such person, with or without a view of the body as he may think fit, and may determine the cause of death.”
24. In this case, Mr. Hansen (a Coroner) decided that there should be an Inquest in the week following the death of MacLennan. An Inquest is a judicial inquiry held in public. Without the clearest direction in my Terms of Reference, I do not consider it my duty to review and to inquire into a judicial inquiry. An inquiry into the Inquest may be conducted, by way of review by the Attorney General under Section 20 of the Coroner's Ordinance, or by way of application for judicial review to the High Court (which possibility was briefly considered and discarded by the Attorney General). However, I think it would be useful if I were to deal with the Inquest in broad terms, both as a matter of history, and in order that I should consider whether or not there was any justification in Mrs. Elliott's allegation which followed the publication of the open verdict, that the Inquest was "a cover-up”.
(b) Appointment of the Coroner and His Officer
25. This was an Inquest which attracted considerable publicity. Whereas normally, a Coroner was assisted by a Police Officer as the Coroner's Officer, in this instance, a Crown Counsel was appointed the Coroner's Officer. The Attorney General appointed Mr. B. Moorfoot, Senior Crown Counsel.
26. As a result of the considerable public interest in the matter, Mr. D. J. Leonard (now Judge Leonard) was appointed Coroner on his return from leave to conduct the Inquest. Pelly, in his evidence, remarked that the pressures from the public were such that he was himself put under considerable pressure by both the Coroner and the Coroner's Officer to complete his inquiries. It was at first thought that the Inquest might be held in mid-February, but Pelly pointed out that it was not humanly possible. In the event, the Inquest was adjourned to 29 February 1980. Pelly was not able to submit his voluminous covering report until 26 February 1980.
(c) Representations at the Inquest
27.
Legal representations at the Inquest were as follows:—
28.
Mr. B. Moorfoot, Senior Crown Counsel, Coroner's Officer.
Mr. Andrew Hodge, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Royal Hong Kong Police.
Mr. Bernard Downey, Barrister (now Judge Downey), for MacLennan's parents.
The representation of MacLennan's parents was made possible by the Attorney General who thought it important that MacLennan's parents should be represented for two reasons:-
29.
11
"(a) First, that obviously they had an important interest in the death of their son.
(b) Secondly, I regarded it as important that the evidence presented in public should not as it were go through on the
nod but should be tested as vigorously as possible in cross-examination."
The Attorney General therefore made enquiries of the Director of Legal Aid as to whether or not it would be possible to provide legal aid funds to brief Counsel on behalf of MacLennan's family. The Director advised that under the Legal Aid Ordinance, he was not able to do so. The Attorney General did not think it appropriate to use his departmental funds for the purpose, so he telephoned General Purdon, then Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration), and asked him whether or not there were any charitable funds within the Police Force for the purpose. General Purdon replied that there was, and it was then arranged that the Legal Aid Department would give assistance. Mr. Downey was then briefed on behalf of MacLennan's parents and from that point onwards, he took over the matter, without any reference to the Attorney General.
(d) The Attorney General's Contact with the Coroner's Officer
30.
In the course of this Inquiry, I received evidence from the Attorney General in the form of a statement dated 20 July 1980 and another statement received by this Commission in May 1980, in which he dealt with, inter alia, his communications with the Coroner's Officer both before and after the Inquest. In the course of his evidence, the Attorney General was questioned by various Counsel as to these communications. I must therefore deal with this matter in order to determine whether or not these communications had any bearing on the conduct of the Inquest.
10
Coroner's Ordinance, Cap. 14.
11
See Transcript page 11597.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.