was
203
orted that the Coroner ruled several times that the only evidence directly relating to the cause of MacLennan's death was to be admitted. The conversation which Superintendent Pelly had had with MacLennan on the night before he died was not, however, ruled inadmissible, presumably on the basis that it was of close proximity to the cause of death. In evidence, Pelly said that MacLennan in that conversation said that while he was in Special Branch, he had investigated all sorts of "queer hawks", including some senior police officers. Although Pelly gave no more evidence than the bare assertion made by MacLennan that he had undertaken investigations into homosexuality, the reference harked back to Mrs. Elliott's allegations of the 19 January.
9.
On 13 March 1980, after nine days of hearing, the Coroner summed up to the jury. The summing up took nearly three hours. The jury retired and took nearly as long in their deliberations. When they returned, they gave an open verdict as to the cause of death. After a further half hour's adjournment, the jury suggested four riders, namely, “(1) that methods of charging police officers should be looked into with a view to avoid what had happened in this particular case ever occurring again, (2) officers in charge of investigations had no check list by which they could guarantee a thorough investigation, (3) officers in charge of investigations should not assume that their subordinates had the imagination and initiative to carry out their duties without instructions and/or supervision as clearly evidenced with the photographer and the finger-printer in this case, (4) homosexual laws or laws relating to homosexuals should be updated to at least those current in the United Kingdom."
10.
The jury's open verdict received front-page treatment in both the English and Chinese press. Many of the headlines fore-shadowed the controversy that was to gather momentum in the next few months. In a front-page headline, the South China Morning Post said “MacLennan: doubts remain. Shock verdict stuns Inquest." In an inside article, the South China Morning Post carried allegations by a Mrs. Thomson, a close friend of MacLennan, that she now believed that MacLennan was “a hounded man". Mrs. Elliott was also quoted by the same article to have said that she was not convinced that MacLennan had committed suicide and she added “he certainly was hounded to death”.
11.
The verdict attracted much editorial comment in the English papers and aroused some interest in the international press. In a leader of 13 March 1980, the Hong Kong Standard said:-
"Investigation into his (John MacLennan's) death should continue. Too many questions were left unanswered at the Inquest, and the air must be cleared".
It went on to say that:
"the atmosphere at the inquest was rife with suspicion as evidence suggested that the unit, which was set up 18 months ago, investigated homosexual activities and had other senior Police Officers on its list".
On 14 March, the South China Morning Post, in its leader, said:
"The kindest thing to say about the outcome of the Inquest into the death of Inspector John MacLennan is that it has succeeded in adding confusion to a case already rich in puzzles and paradoxes, to such an extent, indeed, that matters can hardly be left where they are".
12. This press reaction was not surprising since some of the issues giving rise to public debate at this time were excluded from the Inquest, and therefore remain unresolved. In the summing up to the jury, the Coroner gave the following directions which made it clear (rightly, in law) that the jury's task was a limited one:-
13.
"In a matter such as this, looked at generally, it can be said that various questions may arise. Some which have come to your mind, perhaps, would be the question whether the deceased was properly accused when he had an allegation made against him in 1978 or whether he was innocent of the allegation. It may occur to you or some other people there was he guilty of those eight offences held against him in 1978 and on which he was going to be arrested and charged. You may have wondered whether the matter of his dismissal was properly handled or whether the laws related to homosexuality in Hong Kong ought to be changed or not. You may wonder what names would appear in the files of Special Branch about rumours against certain people and whether those rumours are true or false. The charter of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) might be the right one or whether the investigation might be handled better or whether the arrest procedures of the Police ought to be changed. There are hundreds of things that come to mind. Questions of general interest are legitimate items for people to discuss in public. All I need to say to you is until you have delivered your verdict, don't trouble yourselves about any of these questions because the law says you are not required to answer them. You will remember that you took an oath to give a verdict on the evidence and that it is your duty today.”
In Scotland, the Inspector's death and the Inquest were quite extensively covered by the press in Aberdeen. MacLennan being a Scot, local interest was to be expected. The national press, after the Inquest, began to show interest. In an article of 15 March 1980, headlined, "Overstepping the Oriental Mark”, the Spectator asserted that:
"the Coroner's court inquiry into the death of Inspector John MacLennan had caused the biggest scandal in Hong Kong . . .”
The article threw doubt on the suicide theory by quoting one of the pathologists, Dr. Wong Kin-wing, who said:
"I cannot say whether the wounds were self-inflicted or done by someone else. All I can say is that it was not by accident.”
It went on to say:
"The extraordinary number of bullets fired, as well as the allegations made by MacLennan before his death, had given rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories, some of them hinted at by Bernard Downey, the Barrister who had been hired by MacLennan's parents."
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.