File No.
Page
Y.E.,
We spoke on Tuesday morning after Executive Council
about the attached letter from Mrs. Elliott. We agreed
that you should see her;
(a)
(b)
that you will make it clear that you must hand
Redacted 'under FOI exemption 40(2)
'A'
'B'
'B2,
any case which she may identify to the CAPO for investigation;
(c) that, if she will not identify cases on that under-
standing, the matter is at an end.
The attached letter from Mrs. Eliott.
2.
A miñor point for the avoidance of doubt. The confidence of which she writes is not, of course, in any sense the familiar legal privilege. It is entirely her own
view of the basis on which she conversed with the prisoners
in question - associating Sanguinetti with this tends to be misleading.
3.
Now for the particular cases to which she refers in paragraph 10.
(a) I attach a note on this case by Mr. Lucas ('A').
The appeal judge considered that the magistrate
made a mess of it and allowed
the appeal. This does not mean ipso facto that there was a "frame-up", and so far as one can ever say with certainty it does not look to us
like a "frame-up" on the available material.
defendant was represented at his trial. (b) Again, I attach a note ('B') prepared by Crown
Counsel who conducted this appeal. He agrees with
complaint is not sub-
the CAPO view that
The
stantiated. At my request, Mr. Lucas also looked at the case. I attach his note ('B2) to me (which
also touches briefly on broader issues). This is
the case which is still within the jurisdiction of the UMELCO Group. As I have reported to you,
appeal succeeded essentially because of
the magistrate's choice of words. Again, the fact
that the appeal was allowed does not mean that there was a "frame-up".
G.F. 82