concerning relations or dealings between the Government of the United
Kingdom and the Government of Hong Kong, and whether or not they are
representative of
'sensitive', might well be/a category of documents which the Secretary
of State would not wish to disclose. The lack of sensitivity of
particular documents should not affect consideration of the class as
a whole.
AB
WITH (13A Turning now to the two documents referred to in Mr Jones letter to you, they were of course mentioned in my letter of the 19th June, in paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively, on page 4. The Crown Solicitor proposes that these documents should only be produced against an undertaking to respect their confidentiality. I think you will appreciate that if production of these documents is ordered by the Court, the
documents will be disclosed on the hearing of the action by a witness from your Department who will produce them from the proper custody.
If the documents have been properly described in the subpoena, one can only assume that the Defendants will regard them as being relevant to the proceedings, and will refer to them during the course of the hearing. Although case law makes it clear that documents produced during the course of legal proceedings cannot be used for any other purpose, it would, no doubt, be sufficient for the purposes of 'Private Eye' if they were read out in open Court. In any event, it would be very difficult
to assert that an improper use had been made of a document produced at the trial of an action by a third party. Thus, I do not think that the
case referred to in the last paragraph of the first page of the Crown
Solicitor's letter will be of any great help to us. If the documents
are referred to in evidence, then any assiduous reporter may take note
of what is said in them, and I cannot see a Court adjourning to hear
these proceedings in camera because of the contents of the two documents to which reference has been made. It may be therefore that a claim for immunity in the public interest will have to be made for at least
two documents.
I have heard nothing from the Plaintiff's solicitors since their letter
to me of the 14th July 1981 in which they agreed with my view in
2