TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 395

406

+DEAR MRS. ELLIOTT,

YOU WILL REMEMBER COMING TO SEE ME ABOUT THE UNTIMELY DEATH OF JOHN MACLENNAN. AS I EXPLAINED WHEN WE MET, THERE IS IN FACT TO BE AN INQUEST INTO HIS DEATH, AND THE CORONER HAS NOW FORMALLY ANNOUNCED THIS. I AM SURE YOU KNOW THAT A CORONER IS AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL OFFICER WHO WILL RUN HIS INQUIRY ALONG SUCH LINES AS HE CONSIDERS RIGHT AND PROPER. HE IS IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH THE POLICE FORCE NOR ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY AND IS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY, NOT OF THE EXECUTIVE.

THE CORONER HAS ASKED ME TO PROVIDE HIM WITH A LAWYER TO ACT AS CORONER'S OFFICER AND I HAVE DONE SO. HE WILL BE THE PERSON WHO, SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CORONER, WILL DECIDE THE LINES ALONG WHICH ENQUIRIES WILL BE MADE AND WHAT EVIDENCE OUGHT TO BE GIVEN RELEVANT TO THE MATTER BEING ENQUIRED INTO. I HAVE CHOSEN A BARRISTER WHO IN MY OPINION HAS A STRONG INDEPENDENT OUTLOOK ON LIFE TO BE THE CORONER'S OFFICER.

AS I EXPLAINED WHEN WE MET, IT IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR LAWYERS TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS SAVE PERHAPS TO INTERVIEW AN OCCASIONAL WITNESS. IT IS NOT OUR EXPERTISE TO DO THIS. THAT IS A TASK WHICH POLICEMEN ARE TRAINED TO DO. ACCORDINGLY IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS TO BE DONE ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CORONER'S OFFICER BY POLICEMEN. I CAN ASSURE YOU HOWEVER THAT ALL STATEMENTS GIVEN WILL GO BEFORE THE CORONER'S OFFICER AND HE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT FURTHER ENQUIRIES REQUIRE TO BE MADE. INDEED I HAVE NO DOUBT IF HE FELT IT WISE OR NECESSARY TO DO SO, HE WOULD HIMSELF RE-INTERVIEW ANY WITNESSES.

THIS LEADS ME TO MR. XYZ ABOUT WHOM YOU SPOKE IN CONFIDENCE TO ME. SINCE THEN HIS NAME HAS BEEN OPENLY BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY MR AND MR

SO THAT I CONSIDER AM NO LONGER BOUND BY THE TERMS OF CONFIDENTIALITY ! GAVE TO YOU. FOLLOWING OUR MEETING, THROUGH XYZ'S LAWYER MR

WHOSE NAME YOU PROVIDED TO, ME, 1 ASKED XYZ TO COME PRIVATELY TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH MY OWN ASSISTANT. I HAD IN MIND THAT IF HE WERE PREPARED TO REPEAT WHAT YOU TOLD ME HE HAD SAID TO YOU, THE MATTER COULD THEN BE TAKEN FORWARD FROM THERE. HOWEVER, XYZ DECIDED THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO BE INTERVIEWED BY MY ASSISTANT AND TOLD HIM SO VIA MR

(LAWYER). INSTEAD HE PROVIDED IN THE SAME WAY A WRITTEN STATEMENT HE HAD MADE WHICH DENIES THAT HE WAS ASKED TO FRAME ANYBODY. DESPITE THIS I HAVE TOLD THE CORONER'S OFFICER THAT IN MY OPINION HE MUST SEE XYZ HIMSELF IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY POLICE AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT XYZ APPARENTLY SAID TO YOU AND THE WRITTEN STATEMENT HE HAS MADE. THE CORONER'S OFFICER TELLS ME THAT THE CORONER HAS DIRECTED HIM TO DO THIS AND I HAVE NO DOUBT IT WILL BE DONE.