13
23 of the Coroner's Rules restricted the Coroner to hearing evidence on specific matters relating only to how, when and where MacLennan had come by his death. For this reason evidence relating to the Yuen Long incident, the homosexuality and the Fulton allegations were held to be too remote for the Inquest. The Inquest opened on 29 February 1980 and concluded on 12 March 1980. After a meticulous summing-up by the Coroner, the jury returned an open verdict by a majority of two to one. Before the Inquest Mr. Moorfoot had interviewed Mrs. Elliott as a possible witness. She alleges that he attempted to influence her in her views about MacLennan's homosexuality and the cause of his death. Such imputation is entirely without foundation. Mr. Moorfoot's integrity and honesty are not in question. No criticism can be made of anything done by the Attorney General, Mr. Leonard and Mr. Moorfoot.
92.
I now deal with the Attorney General's investigations.
(a) The Attorney General[Mr. J. Duffy/Mrs. Elliott meeting
93.
On the 24 January 1980 the Attorney General and Mr. J. Duffy, Crown Counsel advising on the MacLennan prosecution showed Mrs. Elliott the MacLennan Prosecution File in order to demonstrate to her that the intended prosecution had been unbiased. Owing to Mrs. Elliott's unreasoning prejudice and suspicion, she went away very skeptical, particularly of Mr. Duffy's bona fides. Mr. Duffy's honesty, integrity and competency are not in question.
(b) The Fulton allegation
94.
The Attorney General asked his Assistant, Mr. Astin to interview Inspector Fulton. On advice received, Fulton did not see Astin but instead passed to Astin a statement he had given to Pelly on 28 January 1980 in which he said he did not consider the SIU was framing "John" but he considered that they were over-zealous. On 1 February Miss Beeson, Crown Counsel, gave the Attorney General a statement stating that Fulton considered he had been asked to take part in a "frame-up". Those inquiries were properly made and properly motivated.
(c) Decision whether to re-open the Inquest
95.
The Attorney General was correct in his opinion that under Section 20 of the Coroner's Ordinance he had no power to re-open the Inquest. The investigations conducted by Pelly being thorough, no further investigations were necessary in that within the limited scope of the Coroner's power under the Ordinance, no further investigations by the Coroner were possible.
(d) Events leading up to the Attorney General's press release
96.
The Attorney General thought it right that Fulton's allegation be referred to CAPO. The Deputy Commissioner of Police took a somewhat different view. The matter was resolved by the Governor, and as a result Fulton's complaint was referred to CAPO. This was clearly proper, and properly motivated.
(e) The Attorney General's press conference
97. On 23 May 1980 the Attorney General held a press conference, at which he distributed to members of the press a press release. The press release began with the following words: "There was overwhelming evidence at the inquest into the death of Inspector MacLennan which shows that he committed suicide." Some of the members of the press present thought the Attorney General had by this remark challenged the jury's verdict. In a series of questions and answers that followed he sought to explain and stress that he was not "over-ruling" the jury's verdict.
(f) Propriety or otherwise of the press conference
98.
The Attorney General had a proper motive in giving the press conference, and in stating his genuine conclusions as to the circumstances of MacLennan's death. He was clearly in a dilemma. He should have realized the undesirable effects of stating that there was overwhelming evidence of suicide, particularly in view of the high office he held. As a leading lawyer, he, more than anyone else, should have anticipated the charge that he was at least giving the impression that he had impugned the jury's verdict. His decision to say what he said at the press conference should gave been made with that danger in mind. Once he had announced that there was overwhelming evidence of a suicide, the subsequent explanation that he was not impugning the jury's verdict was not likely to be accepted, and indeed it was not. He failed to appreciate that in so doing he would in fact be seen by the majority of reasonable people as using the weight of his office to challenge the finality of the jury's verdict. The Attorney General has, therefore, made an error of judgment. The strong reactions that followed was a natural and understandable consequence of that error.
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.