28.
207
On 19 June 1980, the Attorney General issued a lengthy statement answering points made by Mrs. Elliott. In the statement, the Attorney General reproduced a letter which he had sent to Mrs. Elliott dated 2 February 1980, and in which he referred to the European Inspector (whom he called Inspector XYZ) as having given a statement to the Police denying that he had been asked to frame anybody. The Attorney General went on to say in this statement that Inspector XYZ's allegation had been referred to CAPO (Complaints Against Police Office). After the statement was published, Mrs. Elliott issued this challenge to the Attorney: "I suggest that he (Mr. Griffiths) produces Inspector XYZ to deny it.
29.
On 21 June 1980, the South China Morning Post quoted Mrs. Elliott as having said that the Government should give immediate permission for Inspector XYZ to make a statement about his role in the alleged attempt to frame the late MacLennan. This call was also extensively covered by the Chinese press.
30.
23 June 1980 saw further editorial comment. The Hong Kong Standard said: "There is only one way now to end the public's very real anxiety over the whole of the Inspector MacLennan's affairs-appoint an independent inquiry headed by someone of absolute integrity, preferably someone from outside Hong Kong."
31.
On 26 June 1980, Mrs. Elliott renewed her call to the Government to allow Inspector XYZ to make a public statement. In an open letter to the Commissioner of Police, Mrs. Elliott asked that the Inspector should be freed from any order to remain silent, that he should be given a guarantee that he would not be penalized, that the report the Inspector made should be investigated, and that laws against homosexuality be revised. Editorial comments supported Mrs. Elliott's call. On the same day, the Star, in its editorial supported Mrs. Elliott's appeal. On 28 June, the Chief Police Information Officer clarified the matter. "In fact", the Chief Police Information Officer said, “at no time was Inspector XYZ given an order to remain silent. There was absolutely no intention of taking vindictive action against Inspector XYZ."
32.
On 30 June 1980, there was yet further development. Former Crown Counsel, Howard Lindsay, wrote to all the English newspapers and for the first time, Inspector XYZ was publicly named. He was Senior Inspector Michael Fulton. In his letter to the press, Lindsay described in detail how he had heard from Fulton of an alleged attempt by the SIU to get Fulton to set up John MacLennan. He described how he had arranged for Fulton to repeat his complaint to Mrs. Elliott and another Crown Counsel. He also said that he repeated the same complaint to the Attorney General on 22 November 1979 and that on or about January 23rd, he wrote a long letter to the Coroner setting out in detail the background of the Fulton's complaint as he knew it. Later, on 10 February, he gave a supplementary statement to Supt. Pelly the Coroner's investigating officer.
33. On 2 July 1980, there was yet further editorial comment. The Hong Kong Standard said: "The accuracy of Mr. Lindsay's letter can be verified by only one person-Mr. Fulton . . . In the MacLennan's case, the Government and the Attorney General, John Griffiths, seem determined not to see beyond their noses. The crux of the issue today is not merely to determine how MacLennan died; but how justice is administered in the Society where at least some top Government officials, at times, speak of accountability. In this context, the Lindsay's letter casts a heavy shadow over the June 19th statement of the Attorney General."
34. For the first time since MacLennan's death, a lengthy editorial appeared in a Chinese newspaper. The Chinese press had hitherto reported the matter but had kept away from editorial comments. "There should be an exhaustive inquiry, not only because there were question marks over the cause of death, the "set-up” allegations made by Mrs. Elsie Elliott and Howard Lindsay, it is necessary because the future of administration of justice in Hong Kong is at stake.”
35.
On 3 July 1980, Fulton issued a statement through his solicitors who said among other things: "On our instructions, however, it is also true that our client was instructed by the Special Investigations Unit of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force (the SIU) to “set-up" the late Inspector MacLennan. Our client never complied with such instruction and insofar as the impression has been created that he made those allegations and subsequently withdrew them, that impression is false.”
36.
Fulton's announcement marked the final stage of public pronouncements made by the main protagonists. The next few days saw further editorial comments. The Chinese Star called for a public inquiry. On 3 July the Sun said: “It is time the Governor intervenes in this case. He has all the powers to over-ride anyone in Hong Kong and order an inquiry: "A Commission presided by a High Court Judge with wide Terms of Reference." The South China Morning Post, on 5 July, said: “In short, today, while there is lingering doubt in the minds of some how MacLennan had died, the circumstances leading up to his death caused even more serious questions and this coupled with the half truths and incomplete statements that have been published are causing deep public misgivings. It has been the SCMP's constant view that the whole affair should be referred to a Commission of Inquiry which is the only way of laying the matter to rest." The Hong Kong Standard's editor added: “A public inquiry into this alleged illegal activity of a law enforcement unit is vital to the well being of our society."
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.