wrote his letter of the 19th January 1978. In that letter Lord Goronwy
Roberts sets out the fact that the Hong Kong Government have investigated
the complaint and find no record of the case; no record of any charge;
no record of any conviction and that so far as their investigations can
establish, Mr. Tung's name and reputation in Hong Kong are unblemished.
There is nothing, says Lord Goronwy Roberts, that we can do further,
there is nothing in the records against Mr. Tung. Mr. Tung takes the
view that that letter is a libel and thus brings this action in the English
Courts.
as
In my view that letter is not a libel no Jury could say it
was on the contrary it praises him, says he is a good man with no
charges against him. Furthermore it is a letter written upon an occasion of qualified privilege between a Minister of State and a Member of
Parliament about a citizen of this country or, at least. of one of its
Colonies. Even if the letter were defamatory, which it clearly is not, the
Plaintiff would have to show that the writer was actuated by spite or malice.
There is no evidence, nor could there be, that Lord Goronwy Roberts was seek-
ing to spite Mr. Tung or to do something against him. Indeed, he seeks to
reassure Mr. Tung.
Mr. Tung would have liked this case to have taken place in open
Court so that he could have made a statement on Oath. I have little doubt
that the Treasury Solicitor would not raise objection to my judgment
being made available to Mr. Tung. As the judgment of a Queen's Bench
Master, Mr. Tung may use it to publicise his innocence or show it to any-
one he wishes.
Accordingly, the Writ is struck out as disclosing no cause of
action against the Defendants and the case is dismissed as asked. The
Defendants are at liberty to restore as to costs.
18th JUNE 1979
John Elte