CONFIDENTIAL
2
I now agree with what I perceive to be the opinion of Mr. Bailey, namely, that many of these documents belong to a class which should be protected from public scrutiny. As was stated by Lord Wilberforce in the Burmah Oil case (at page 728E) :
11
with a class claim it is immaterial whether the disclosure of the particular contents of particular documents would be injurious to the public interest the point being that it is
the maintenance of the immunity of the class from disclosure in litigation that is important
#1
I take the view that some of these documents fall into the following classes which should be protected from public scrutiny :
(a)
(b)
(c)
official communications between H.E. the Governor (whether transmitted directly or through the London office of the Hong Kong Government) and the Foreign Secretary or the F.C.0. Minister of State (H.K.) concerning matters of state;
official communications between the Chief Secretary (whether direct or through the London office) and the F.C.0. Minister of State (H.K.) concerning matters of state; and;
official communications between the Attorney General of Hong Kong (whether direct or through the London Office) and the F.C.O. Minister of State (H.K.) concerning matters of state.
In my view all documents falling within each of these three categories should be the subject of a claim for public interest privilege on the grounds of the class to which they belong.
Accordingly my views on the documents appended to your letter of the 15th of July, 1981 are as follows :
HRK 380/3 1980
(1)
(2)
то
pindmission
7
the telex of 21.4.80, Clift to Blaker class (b) as it is an indirect communication from the C.S. to the F.C.O. Minister of State;
HAR380/3 1980
8
the two letters of 22.4.80 from Blaker to Parry and from Blaker to Cook
not
privileged;
/ (3)
CONFIDENTIAL