342
22.
CONFIDENTIAL
7
The post mortem was carried out on the 17th January by Dr.
WONG Kin-ming. Present at the post mortem were Dr. WONG Koon- sang, Inspector Handcock, (a friend of MacLennan), P.C. 5827, (a police photographer) and PC 6924 (the Death Enquiry Constable). No chemist was present. Neither was the enquiry officer present. Five bullet wounds were found on the front of the body, and three exit wounds were found on the back of the body. Two spent bullet heads were removed from the body. A blood sample and an anal swab were taken for analysis. No swab of the hands was taken.
23.
In compiling the Death Enquiry File, a total of 89 witnesses were interviewed, many of whom were police personnel who had attended the scene. Mr. Felly submitted the Death Enquiry File to the Coroner on the 26th February, 1980. Mr. Pelly was of the opinion that the MacLennan incident could be nothing but a case of suicide. There was no evidence to suggest anything to the contrary.
(G) OBSERVATIONS
1.
The Arrest Frocedure
Although the word "charging" was used by the jury in their first rider, it is understood that they were referring to the "arresting" in this case. There are no hard and fast rules laid down in law or in police instructions as to how and what steps are to be followed in effecting the arrest of police officers. In practice when police officers are arrested by the I.C.A.C. the procedure is for the I.C.A.C. to inform the police commander to arrange for the presence of the officer to be arrested, at a designated place, usually at his formation commander's office, at an appointed day and time for the arrest action to be carried out. This procedure has worked on numerous occasions, and is considered to be acceptable to both the I.C.A.C. and the police.
2.
In deciding the course of action to be followed in effecting the arrest of MacLennan, Mr. Ross and Mr. Brooks considered the salient factors to ensure the efficient execution of the mission. They decided that to have Mr. MacLennan present at Mr. Trotman's office for the arrest was the best option. Sufficient time was allowed for the Formation Commander to adjust operational needs.
3.
Mr. Trotman informed MacLennan of the arrangements on the 14th January, one day before the arrest was due to take place. He told Mr. MacLennan that he was required for an interview the following day. He also said that the interview was to be conducted by CID/Police Headquarters. When asked by Mr. MacLennan, Mr. Trotman further disclosed that it would be the S.I.U. Such a specific disclosure was unnecessary and unwise. Mr. Trotman could have been more circumspect. disclosure could, at least, have jeopardized the entire operation.
This
14.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.