TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 199

210

Appix 4

ANNOUNCEMENT MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER ON SATURDAY, 16 AUGUST 1980

IN RESPECT OF MR. NIAMATULLAH'S APPLICATION

I explain why I refused application yesterday-refuse to grant the adjournment sought by Mr. A. M. Niamatullah. While the search for truth must take priority to other considerations, considerations of great personal inconvenience are not to be disregarded. In the case of Inspector Fulton, at all material time, he has had the benefit of the services and advice of his own lawyers. He and his lawyers must have realized that his allegations against Mr. Quinn and Mr. Brooks will be mentioned at the hearing. They must have expected that his allegations would be answered by these two gentlemen. The work of the Commission must not be delayed or be prevented from progressing smoothly simply because of one person's tardiness in looking after his own interest. I do not see why the Commission and the legal representatives and their assistants and witnesses should suffer great inconvenience and spend more time on the inquiry because of one person. In my view, the application should have been made on the 5th of August at the latest. It is my opinion that it is not in the public interest to grant the adjournment sought. I may add on passing that Inspector Fulton is not a subject of investigation in this inquiry-no, of course, it is hoped he will be a witness.