These paper have now come to me for the first time since the exercise was launched in April: it seems to me that he have been making very heavy weather over the CR55 question. 9 agree basically with what this Gregorz says in her minute alove. Ow researches show that the 1974 Champion letter remaimo generally valid - even in respect of CR55. The use of this regulation has always been exceptional (but this is not, as thor Green implies, synonymous with saying that is should only be used in security cases); but the Youmater case was exceptional, and I do not think anybody has any illusions about this, ambat the fact t gread hunker to Hong og nor do I think that or tele. no99 to Hong Kong can be read to imply any
to данте willingness to use CR55 other than in sunlarly exceptional cases. No Hunters proposed note on "Proceedings against Corrupt Officers" says no more than that "it may be possible to take action under (R55" in cases where there are practical action to obstacles to proceding through the normal channels but remain strong grounds for believing
officer to be corrupt. This in no way prejudges the outcome, and I believe we could quite safely accept i Hunter's note as it stands. But if we feel we ought to say something, then it should be sufficient simply to remind him that CR5s is not to be resorted to lightly and to suggest that he inserts a phrase in his note to the effect that the Regulation can
can only be used in exceptional circumstances. 9 attach a revised and simplified draft.
an
R
a
W.S. Chantill
17/10