CONFIDENTIAL
C) (1) WE ARE AT THE MOMENT CONCERNED AS TO WHETHER OR NO THE
AFFIDAVIT OF MR HOBLEY CLEARLY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY SHOWS
THAT CONSPIREACY TO EFFECT AN UNLAWFUL OBJECT CONSTITUTED
AN OFFENCE AGAINST THE LAWS OF HONG KONG IN FEBRUARY
MARCH 1971.
(11)HAY MR HOBLEY PLEASE THEREFORE SWEAR A FURTHER DULY
AUTHENTICATED AFFIDAVIT EXHIBITING THERETO AN UNAMENDED
GOVERNMENT PRINTERS COPY OF ORDINANCE. 2 OF 1966,' STATING THAT
THIS IS THE ORDINANCE REFERRED TO AT PARAGRAPH 10 OF HIS
EXISTING EVIDENCE AND THAT, QUOTE IT IS, AND HAS BEEN SINCE 1966, AND, (IF SUCH BE THE CASE), BEFORE, AN OFFENCE AGAINST THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AND NOW EXISTS IN HONG KONG TO CONSPIRE
WITH ANOTHER TO COMMIT AN ILLEGAL ACT. UNQUOTE
11)NO DOUBT THE CONTENTS OF SUB-PARA (11) ABOVE CAN BE SPELT OUT FROM THE EVIDENCE AS IT NOW EXISTS, BUT LET US PLEASE
BE SURE AND NOT GET INVOLVED IN USELESS, TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE LITIGATION.
UNQUOTE
CALLAGHAN
FILES
HKIOD
NTD
LEGAL ADVISERS
2
CONFIDENTIAL