67
!
Insp 'Quinn at Stanley Prison. Duffy told Quinn that he was preparing a lengthy petition to the Governor naming persons involved in homosexual activities. In mid-July the Legal Department activity was hastened in relation to the prosecution of Molo Tsui. Clancy and Ross were of the opinion that the only thing that could have "stirred up” such activity was Duffy's petition. Clancy told Ross to instruct Quinn to go to Stanley Prison to ask Duffy if he was prepared to give the Police a copy of it. Quinn went on 14 August 1979. Duffy was prepared to give him a copy of the petition and a photostat copy was made, but the prison staff did not give Quinn permission to take it away. Quinn then returned and reported the matter to Ross. That was the first time Ross heard of Duffy's petition from Quinn. Ross in turn reported to Clancy and Clancy spoke to Moor.
70.
On the following day Clancy was instructed by Moor that the Prison Authorities would now allow a copy of the petition to be made available to the Police and Clancy gave instruction to Quinn to go and collect it. On the 15 August 1979 when Quinn spoke to Duffy, the latter was reluctant to make his petition available unless he was given some kind of assurance that he would not be prosecuted for any offences which might be disclosed in his petition. Quinn informed Clancy about this and asked if Clancy could give this kind of a guarantee. There is a conflict of evidence between Clancy and Quinn as to what Clancy's precise instructions were. Quinn was of the opinion that he was authorized to give Duffy the immunity asked for and did so. Clancy on the other hand denied that he had given such authority but conceded that he might have said something which led Quinn to believe, albeit erroneously, that authority was given. As the controversy falls outside my Terms of Reference, I need not attempt to resolve it. Suffice it to say that only the Attorney General has the power to grant an immunity and this was known to both Clancy and Quinn. In the event, the form of immunity given by Quinn was in law quite worthless.
71.
Either on the same day or the following day, the petition was given to Clancy. A few days after the DPP telephoned Clancy and said that Quinn had given an immunity in Clancy's name to Duffy. The DPP was unhappy about it and Clancy agreed that he could not offer an immunity to anyone and promised to deal with the matter. Some days later Moor showed Clancy the immunity and told him that the Attorney General had spoken with him about that immunity and expressed considerable displeasure and instructed Clancy to admonish Quinn in strong terms. Clancy told Moor he had dealt with it in CID Headquarters. Mr. Moor informed the Attorney General what he had done and the Attorney General expressed his satisfaction.
72.
Moor also informed Henry about the incident and Henry was "quite satisfied that the matter was being dealt with by Mr. Moor."22
73.
Mr. Moor later learned that Clancy had not rebuked or corrected Quinn with the severity required and expressed in no uncertain terms his displeasure at Clancy's lack of action.
74.
According to Ross, Clancy showed him the Duffy petition on 16 August 1979 and asked him to give his opinion of it. He thought "it was a totally innocuous document, it contained nothing we did not already know." Clancy agreed with this view.
K.
POLICY ON EMPLOYMENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN THE POLICE FORCE
75. There is no policy as such, and different persons hold different views on the subject. According to Mr. Blackburn (the Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police), throughout 1978 to early 1980, the policy was that no person who had been convicted or who was committing criminal acts (including homosexual offences) should be in the Police Force; as to a person who was not convicted but known to be a homosexual, the "policy" was "to get rid of the officer by any means available to the Force, i.e. by early retirement or non-renewal of agreement, or . . . not allowing the officer back to the Police Force." But if for operational reasons (i.e. special reasons) it was thought desirable to keep that officer on, e.g. as an informer or in helping with Police enquiries, then he would be permitted to continue in the Force. But when his usefulness comes to an end, then Blackburn would expect the officer's name to be referred to him and he would implement the Force policy. This would happen to homosexual as well as to corrupt officers. But he accepts that there is no official policy. General Purdon, Deputy Commissioner (Administration) says that there is no written policy to take action against homosexuals, but if an incident was proven then action would be taken. Mr. Clancy agrees with Blackburn's view that homosexuals should not be employed in the Police Force, though for operational reasons they might be kept on. On the other hand, according to his experience a known or self-confessed homosexual who had not been caught out had been allowed to continue in the Force without his career being affected. Mr. Moor does not agree with Chief Superintendent Ross' view that "sexual predilections of adults are matters for themselves provided that no injury is done to others." Moor said: "If I personally had been aware of such a thing as the Deputy Commissioner I do not think I would have left it there." He also disagrees with Mr. Clancy's view that prior to the Government House meeting he would not have taken action against a homosexual officer. Moor said in evidence he would not condone it. Mr. Henry thinks that proven practising homosexuals should not be employed. There was in fact no policy on the issue. Before being asked about the matter when giving evidence before the Commission, Mr. Henry had never publicly or officially
22
See Transcript page 11408.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.