CONFIDENTIAL
the enclosed memorandum shown to Mrs Castle when the Secretary of State saw her on 23 November. (She was not incidentally very impressed by it.) We have therefore already gone a very long way to meet the lawyers on this aspect of the case and would need to be strongly convinced that there was something more to be extracted from the Hong Kong customs and police which would have a direct bearing on Rita's claim to innocence before going back to Hong Kong for a third time. We are however by no means persuaded. Moreover when one studies the questionnaire one is impressed more by its tendentious wording than its relevance. It appears to question the motives of the Hong Kong customs and police officials and implies that the case was not properly investigated at the Hong Kong end. It is clearly not the sort of document to which we could reasonably expect the Hong Kong Government to return a constructive reply. If the Hong Kong customs are indeed trying to cover up, as David Hallmark allegess in his letters, they are not likely to be encouraged to come clean on the basis of the questionnaire. Our own view is that all the documentary evidence so far produced by the Hong Kong authorities fully supports their version of events and we do not feel there is anything more to be got out of them about the tip-off. In any event the Hong Kong authorities have declined to give us authority to discuss further with the defence lawyers the material they have already made available. I enclose our departmental notes on the questionnaire for your background information.
8. But quite apart from the relevance or otherwise of the questions put to us we feel that matters have moved on to a point where we have to see whether anything can be done at the diplomatic level. As David Lyman himself recognised this is an area where responsibility cannot be shared with the defence lawyers although this does not necessarily mean that they may not have a role to play. For the moment however the initiative lies with us.
9. Your immediate problem, as
as we see it, is having to hold the line with David Lyman while at the same time not admitting anything to him which is not consistent with what the Secretary of State told Mrs Castle. In the light of the Lancashire Evening Telegraph report of 16 November which you sent us the less said to him the better. If however you find it necessary to discuss the case further with him at this stage you may, at your discretion, speak in a very general way on the basis of the enclosed memorandum (since the contents will no doubt have been communicated by Mrs Castle to David Lyman). You may also tell him that the Hong Kong Government have declined to give us permission to discuss the Hong Kong material with him as I hoped we might be able to do when he was in London. We have incidentally no objection to his telling Thai officials that he has spoken to us about the case; our concern is not to reveal
/prematurely
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 135Page 136