167
45.
(c)
the persons, if any, to be charged with murder, manslaughter, infanticide or causing death by dangerous driving, or of being accessories before the fact should the jury find that the deceased came by his death by murder, manslaughter, infanticide or dangerous driving;
(d) the particulars for the time being required by the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance to be registered
concerning the death.”
In my view, Mr. Leonard the Coroner ruled correctly that Section 6 of the Coroner's Ordinance must be read subject to Rule 23 of the Coroner's Rules. Read together, they restrict the Coroner's Court to hearing evidence on specific matters relating only to how, when and where the deceased had come by his death. Evidence which tends to prove or disprove allegations relating to the Yuen Long Incident or that MacLennan had homosexual relations with Chinese males were too remote for a Coroner's Inquest. The Coroner's function was, as the law then stood and still stands, a narrow one. The law never envisaged the type of multifarious allegations surrounding a special case such as MacLennan's death.
46.
The Inquest concluded on 12 March 1980 with a meticulous three-hour summing up by Mr. Leonard. He correctly explained to the jurors that it was not the function of the Inquest to enquire into matters other than the identity of the deceased, and how, where and why he had met his death. After three hours' deliberations, the jury returned an Open Verdict by a majority of two to one.
(g) Conclusion
47.
Although evidence had been excluded from the Inquest, I find that such exclusion was correct in law. There was no evidence whatsoever of any "cover-up" or suppression of evidence. Indeed, both the Attorney General and the Police had attempted to bring into the open all evidence relating to the allegations prevailing at the time. The law as it then stood (and still stands) made no provisions for inquiring into the special circumstances such as in MacLennan's death.
F. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INVESTIGATIONS
(a) The Attorney General/Mr. J. Duffy/Mrs. Elliott Meeting
48. The Attorney General, Mr. John Griffiths, Q.C., was prompted by the publicity given to MacLennan's death to invite Mrs. Elliott to visit him in his Chambers. He wanted to demonstrate to her that the intended prosecution of MacLennan had been unbiased (see para. 4). He arranged for Mr. J. Duffy, then Senior Crown Counsel, who had advised on MacLennan's prosecution, to be in attendance. The visit took place on 24 January 1980. Prior to the visit, Mrs. Elliott had written a letter addressed to the Attorney General dated 19 January 1980 but, in the event, the letter was only opened by the Attorney General in the afternoon of Mrs. Elliott's visit to his Chambers, after Mrs. Elliott had left.
49. At this meeting, Duffy, as instructed by the Attorney General, brought with him the MacLennan's Prosecution File. The Attorney General, Mrs. Elliott and Duffy were the only persons present, and all three agreed in their evidence before this Commission that when the Prosecution File was shown to Mrs. Elliott, she undertook to keep confidential the contents of the file seen by her as well as the briefing she was to receive. The recollections of the Attorney General and Duffy on the one hand, and that of Mrs. Elliott on the other, however, different. Mrs. Elliott's evidence before the Commission was that she was told by the Attorney General that it was Mr. Duffy who had taken the statements in the file, which she read through briefly. She recalled that these concerned eight charges of homosexuality, they were almost identical in wording and quite short, and all the male prostitutes had claimed to have been paid $50 to $100 by MacLennan. She had the impression that these persons might have been Triads and said so to the Attorney General. Her recollection of the contents of the statements was limited to such generalities, but she said that her recollection of the Attorney General's statement to her that Duffy had taken these statements, was distinct: "I'm quite sure he said that because I said to him, well if the police have written these statements I would be doubtful because of the previous experience I've had in this kind of thing, but if Mr. Duffy took those statements then I must trust them, I have no reason to mistrust Mr. Duffy. They didn't correct me on that point, but in fact Mr. Duffy had not taken those statements.
50.
13
When MacLennan's Prosecution File was shown to Mrs. Elliott at the hearing of the Commission, she was unable to recognize the statements therein. She was specifically asked whether she recognized the police statements in the file (--the statements contained identical headings with name, address, age, etc. of the makers). She said she could not. As I am fully satisfied that there was only one Prosecution File in existence at all material times, I can only conclude that Mrs. Elliott's recollection was wrong. But could she be right that she was assured by the Attorney General, in Duffy's presence, that Duffy had taken the statements? Mrs. Elliott was adamant that she was so assured. In fact, on 24 March 1980, after the Inquest, she wrote to Duffy saying that she had been given to understand that Duffy had personally taken the statements from the witness.
14
13
See Mrs. Elliott's evidence at Transcript page 11153.
14
Mrs. Elliott's letter of 24 March 1980 is reproduced at Appendix 40.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.