TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 398

409

Appendix 49

DRAFT PRESS RELEASE PREPARED BY MR. A. BURNS

We act for Mr. Michael Fulton, Senior Inspector in the Royal Hong Kong Police. Now that our client has secured the consent of his Superiors in the force to make a public statement concerning his role in his "MacLennan affair", he wishes to do so through us to clarify the recent controversy which has arisen as a result of statements concerning him which have been made to the press by Mrs. Elsie Elliott and the Attorney General. Until now our client has not made such a statement in view of a caution which had previously been given to him as a matter of standard police procedure by a Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police who has since retired. In stating that no order had been given to our client to remain silent we assume that this caution was not brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Police.

At a recent press conference Mrs. Elliott stated that an Inspector in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force had informed her that he had been instructed by the Special Investigation Unit of the Force (“SIU”) to “set up” the late Inspector MacLennan. Our client is that Inspector; we are instructed that he did receive such an instruction from certain members of the SIU and that he did so inform Mrs. Elliott.

We are instructed that out client did not comply with the instruction of the SIU but instead reported the incident to the Director of Criminal Investigation. Furthermore, he made three written statements concerning the matter to the Coroner's Officer in connection with the latter's enquiries relating to the death of Inspector MacLennan and in addition he made further written statements to a Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police and to Crown Counsel. These statements, copies of which are in our possession and which we understand have been seen by the Attorney General, give full details of our client's allegations concerning the conduct of individual members of the SIU.

In reply to Mrs. Elliott's statement to the effect that our client had been asked to "set up" Inspector MacLennan, the Attorney General made a statement to the press in which our client was referred to as "Inspector XYZ".

In that statement, the Attorney General referred to a letter written by him to Mrs. Elliott on 2 February this year in which he stated, inter alia, that our client had made a written statement which denied that he was asked to “frame” anybody.

The statements of the Attorney General and Mrs. Elliott, taken together suggest that our client had made serious allegations of impropriety concerning the conduct of individual members of the SIU and had subsequently withdrawn those allegations. This is not the case and our client is concerned that his involvement in the matter has therefore been misrepresented.

When our client was first interviewed by the Coroner's Officer he was asked whether he considered that the SIU were "framing" the late Inspector MacLennan. It is true that our client said that he did not think that this was the position and this remains our client's belief to this day. It is however made abundantly clear in our client's later statements (the next of which was made on 31 January this year, before the date of the Attorney General's letter to Mrs. Elliott) in respect of which the only comment that the Attorney General has thought fit to make was that they were "seen by the Coroner and ruled by him to be irrelevant to the inquiry", that what our client was alleging was that he was asked by members of the SIU to "set up" Inspector MacLennan by making introductions to Inspector MacLennan in the expectation that sexual relationships would thereby develop which would provide evidence to support allegations that Inspector MacLennan had homosexual tendencies.

We are instructed therefore that whilst it is true that our client was not asked to "frame" Inspector MacLennan (i.e. concoct false charges against him), he was asked to "set up” Inspector MacLennan as alleged by Mrs. Elliott. There is of course a considerable difference between the two.

The Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police have stated that our client's allegations and others concerning the conduct of individual members of the SIU are presently under investigation by CAPO. In these circumstances therefore we do not consider that it is appropriate to say anything further concerning those allegations here.

Suffice to say that, our client trusts that his allegations will be thoroughly and fairly investigated.