2
the time being in view of a newspaper report that Scrivener is to represent Godber if he is tried here. I am, however, concerned about the possibility that the allegations might be used irresponsibly by local counsel. I know that you will tell me if my judgment is at fault in this, but it seems to me that if the allegations were put to Irvine on Godber's trial it would be no answer at all for me to say that they had not been looked into for the reasons now prevailing. By the way, Russells did not give Penlington the reasons for French's advice.
In answer to the points in paragraph 5(c) and (d) of your letter, I can only say that we acted in what we saw to be the only way in the circumstances and, so far as I am concerned, in a way which was in the interest of finding out if all really was well. I made no attempt to dissuade the Governor from giving me the instruction which he did, though I did not welcome it in that it involved my interviewing Prendergast at arm's length. I saw him along with one of my colleagues and though I tried to minimise the official nature of the interview I could do no other than hand him the telegram and invite him to comment. It was not a pleasant task.
I now think that we should have told you of the course we intended to take (and so does the Governor), but time was short and I still do not see how else the matter was to be resolved anyway. I cannot think, on a view of all the circumstances, that it could seriously be suggested that Irvine should be interviewed while Prendergast was left on one side.
I see clearly the concern which your letter expresses. I do not think that you need be so concerned. So far as differences have developed, they stem from the fact that respective standpoints in the matter have inevitably been somewhat different.
Youre
ever
John.
(J.W.D. Hobley) Attorney General.