21.
206
e no
Panell's challenge was widely reported in both the English and Chinese press. The Attorney General direct comment on Panell's challenge. On 2 June 1980, however, he issued a statement to further explain his decision not to re-open the MacLennan Inquest. He re-iterated that in considering whether or not to re-open the Inquest, he read not only the 160 or so pages of depositions and the previous statements of those witnesses, but also the statements of some 40 other witnesses whom the Coroner had not called.
22.
The Attorney General's further statement of 2 June 1980, did little to ease the public mind. The major English newspapers again made editorial comments. On 3 June 1980, the Hong Kong Standard said: "Whether or not the MacLennan case should be re-opened in view of the open verdict issued by the jury is one thing. Some grave aspersions have meanwhile, been cast on the impartiality of the Attorney General. The written statement of the Attorney General issued last night-mainly to clarify the legal position of the MacLennan case-failed, sadly enough, to dispel the doubts that Panell's rebuff has sown in the public mind and as long as no attempt is made to remove these doubts, the very foundation of impartial justice in Hong Kong would, inevitably, as many fear, be at stake." The next day, 4 June, the Star in its editorial said: “We don't pretend to understand the A.G.'s obviously esoteric thinking, but it does seem to us that even if Mr. Griffiths somehow isn't over-ruling the jury, he would seem to be over-ruling the Coroner, but the only difference between the basis of his opinion and that of the jury's is these 40 pages which the Coroner ruled irrelevant. Can Mr. Griffiths really find them relevant enough to make that much difference to his opinion? Or does Mr. Griffiths have other information? That's what a growing section of the public thinks, and that's where this smell hangs heavily.” The South China Morning Post, in its editorial of 7 June, had this to say: “Each relevation deepens the mystery as to why MacLennan should want to take his own life... The cloud that has settled over his case obscures not only the reasons for MacLennan's death but the part played by others who by accusations or innuendos remain implicated and who deserve to be fully exonerated in the public mind or exposed.”
23.
The Hong Kong Bar Association joined in the public debate by publishing a statement of the 7 June 1980. It was a carefully worded statement which started by recognizing that it was a matter for the Attorney General as to whether or not the Inquest should be re-opened. It then went on to say: “Having said this, the Committee feels bound to express its concern that a situation arose where it may have been thought that the Attorney General was impugning the jury's open verdict. While it is correct that the Attorney General did indicate that it would not be proper for him to comment on why the jury reached that verdict, his conclusion might nevertheless appear to suggest that the jury had come to an incorrect verdict. The Committee believes that the Attorney General did not intend to make such a suggestion, but in the Committee's view, it was most unfortunate that the reports of the press conference gave that impression. The Committee feels in general any public pronouncement which tends to undermine the public's faith in the jury's verdict or to affect adversely the attitude of future jurors and the quality of deliberations ought to be avoided." Although the Committee of the Bar Association did not expressly say so, it was clear that it was referring to the Attorney General's press conference of 23 May and of his conclusion that the late MacLennan died by suicide.
24. On 9 June 1980, the Hong Kong Standard ventured further editorial comment. The editors said that "the most important question in the controversy over the Policeman's death is not whether the Attorney General did intend to impugn the jury's verdict or whether it was, as the Bar Committee said, an unfortunate impression caused by the news media; but whether any conclusive evidence emerged at the death inquest or elsewhere to establish that MacLennan committed suicide." It went on to say that "since the inquest into MacLennan's death has ended with no conclusive verdict, the Government has lost considerable time and opportunity to order an independent inquiry into the matter. And, the longer the Government delays such an inquiry, the more suspicious the public will become over the cause of MacLennan's death and the Government's handling of the case."
25.
On 14 June 1980, the Association for the Promotion of Justice, in a letter to the editors of the three major English newspapers, urged the Attorney General to re-open the case immediately. On the same day, the Hong Kong Standard carried an article in which the father and mother of the late Inspector MacLennan were reported to have told a correspondent of the Hong Kong Standard in Inverness, Scotland, that they were suspicious about official reports from Hong Kong and urged Urban Councillor, Elsie Elliott, to continue her campaign for a second inquiry.
26.
On 16 June 1980, further editorial comment came from the Star: "The whole affair seems to have passed out of his (Attorney General's) jurisdiction to become public property... the public is determined to get to the bottom of it, no matter what Mr. Griffiths says."
27. 17 June 1980 saw further significant development. Mrs. Elliott gave a press conference. This was extensively covered by radio, television and the press. Mrs. Elliott made it clear that there must be another inquiry into the death of John MacLennan. For the first time in public, Mrs. Elliott gave details of what she had heard from Mr. Howard Lindsay, a former Crown Counsel in the Legal Department, i.e., that members of the SIU had intimidated another Police Inspector to try to "set-up" MacLennan on homosexual charges. The Inspector, however, had refused. The plan, according to Mrs. Elliott, was for the un-named Inspector, a European, to get evidence of homosexuality against MacLennan. Failing that, he was to introduce boys to MacLennan with whom MacLennan would be caught. This conference also excited further interest in the United Kingdom. The Observer, a British national newspaper, gave fairly press
detailed coverage to what Mrs. Elliott said.
Page 195Page 196
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.