Edward Christopher Harris

The writing of the blog about Sally Bercow yesterday brought back some memories of the Christopher Harris case 20 odd years back.

In 1988, Christopher Harris (Harris) was a Senior Crown Counsel with the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC). He was the second in command of the Vice Team mainly responsible for advising the police and Customs and Excise on vice, drugs and gambling related contraventions. He was obviously a psychopath and indulged himself in a lot of sexual fantasy. His job related contact with the vice materials might attibute to his devious behaviour. It is not a matter I am in the position to comment. I do not know him personally.

In November 1988, while his wife was away from Hong Kong, Harris patronized the escort agency and asked for a western girl about 16 years of age to be sent to his flat. He also requested the girl to wear a white underwear. The girl who went to his flat was Nicole Marie Louise McKenzie (McKenzie). Matters of a sexual nature took place at that meeting, short of intercourse. There was a good deal of sexual talk. McKenzie was paid for her services and those of the escort agency by credit card. (Oh my god! How stupid it was to use credit card.)  There were difficulties in obtaining payment and McKenzie telephoned Harris for further information about his credit card. Harris had a discussion with McKenzie in the course of that conversation in respect of something he wanted and which she had and requested her to go to his flat again. This McKenzie was unable to do. There was explicit talk of a sexual nature relating to young girls. Harris spoke of the rape of abducted young school girls. McKenzie was shocked. She told a friend about it and it was decided to tape any further telephone conversations with Harris. When McKenzie telephoned him again in connection with the credit card, she herself taped that conversation on a micro-cassette recorder.

McKenzie left Hong Kong on holiday on 30th November and while she was away there was a police raid, in connection with other matters, upon her flat. Among the items seized was the micro-cassette tape and also McKenzie's answering machine which had recorded on it a message left by Harris.

Some time later, as the items seized did not involve the actual investigation then in progress, the tape was played and the Police Special Investigation Unit (SIU) became involved. (SIU was a special unit most people had not heard of. It was responsible for collecting information about homosexual and devious sexual behaviour of people, espcially Government officials). Proper tape recording was then arranged for any conversation which Harris might have with McKenzie or of messages left by him. McKensie had obviously succumbed to pressure to co-operate. There were several recorded conversations and also recordings of messages left by Harris.

On 21st April a meeting took place in Central at which McKenzie introduced to Harris an undercover police officer To Wing Lam (To)(Subject of the first charge). That meeting was tape recorded. In the course of it Harris asked To to procure Caucasian girls under 16 years of age for the purpose of sexual intercourse. The girls could be willing or unwilling and a payment of two to three thousand dollars which was proposed by To was agreed to by Harris. There was explicit sexual talk.

On 24th April 1989 McKenzie telephoned Harris. She told him that the necessary arrangements were being made by To and that a meeting was to take place between them on 27th April after which Harris would be taken to a hotel room where a girl aged 13 to 14 years would be provided for the purpose of sexual intercourse. In the course of that conversation Harris made particular reference to a girl aged 12 whom he would later identify and he desired her procuration for the same purpose. Hence, the second and third charges.

On 26th April McKenzie postponed the meeting informing Harris by telephone. On 1st May Harris left a message on McKenzie's answering machine enquiring if the arrangements were any further forward.

Meanwhile, on 26th April 1989 the police handed their investigation file to the then Acting Director of Public Prosecutions. The AG (Jeremy Matthews) was informed and discussions took place as to whether criminality was involved. Since Harris was a member of AGC, outside counsel advice was necessary to show impartiality. The AG decided to seek the advice of leading and experienced counsel at the private Bar  The questions to which he required an answer were first: did the facts amount to a crime; and second: if so was there sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution.

The police file was delivered to counsel on 27th April with instructions requiring his opinion on those two issues.

On 1st May counsel gave his opinion that no criminal charges could properly be laid on the basis of the material submitted to him. The AG considered that advice, as he considered the advice of members of his own Chambers, including that of the substantive Director of Public Prosecutions. On the same day he decided that there should be no prosecution.

On 3rd May there was a meeting between Harris, the AG and the DPP. Harris was told that there would be no criminal prosecution and he was further told that if his conduct had been found to amount to being criminal then a prosecution would have been brought. He was told that his position in Chambers was untenable. Harris' services were later terminated by mutual resolution of contract. I heard at that time the AG promised to give him prosecution work after he had gone into private practice.

On 4th September 1989 a form of trial by newspaper began. There would appear to have been deliberate leaks of matters contained in the police investigation file. The case hit the front page of SCMP for a week. I believe it was someone in SIU feeling aggrieved for the non prosecution of Harris deliberately leaked the evidence. Before it came out on SCMP, I was told by one of the reporters something exploding was to erupt and I was told to remember to buy SCMP. The AG took further advice on the issue of criminality and a second opinion was sought from the same leading counsel. On 14th September counsel received a new set of instructions which asked him to consider specifically the inchoate offence of incitement - an unusual charge. On 18th September counsel's second opinion was delivered. That contained the advice that there was a prima facie case of inciting to procure underage girls for the purpose of unlawful sexual intercourse.

On 28th September the Acting DPP gave his advice to the AG. On 2nd October 1989 the AG had a further meeting with members of his Chambers, considered all the opinions and advice which had been placed before him and made the decision to prosecute. That decision was made public in the Legislative Council by the AG on 18th October 1989.

Harris was subsequently charged and convicted of one offence, i.e. Inciting to Procure Woman Under the Age of 21 for the Purpose of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He appealed the conviction mainly on the ground that the AG promised not to prosecute and later changed his mind. Harris argued that it was abuse of process. The appeal was dismissed. The Bar Association applied to have his name struck off from the bar list. After serving his sentence, he went back to UK. I did not keep track of him.

Unwittingly, the Acting DPP who gave advice to prosecute Harris was Warwick Reid who was subsequently arrested by the ICAC for unrelated corruption offences. He fled to the Phillipines. I wrote about him in another Chinese article called 從殺貪官說起. Shortly afterwards, the AG was also in the limelight for his extra-marital affairs with his Chief Information Officer Ms Gueterres. The AG later divorced his wife and married Gueterres. Most of the people at that time were grieving for the Tiananmen Massacre or busy filling forms for migration. The storm in the legal circle might have slipped from their eyes. Without the leak to the newspaper, Harris could have been practising in HK until he had run out of fantasy. The fourth estate can be powerful and lethal.

(The facts of the Harris case are mainly extracted from the appeal case R v Edward Christopher Harris CACC72/1990, otherwise from the remnants of my fragmentised memories. Reminiscence of the good old days can be very deceptive. Subjective and selective memory of facts interwined with reality can tint what acutally happened into fiction.)