PP HONG KONG
Акк
350
RECEIVED IN MOSTRY NO. 51
12 JAN1981
SRS 110
DECK OFFICER INDEX
PA
REGISTRY Action Taken
C
معلن
* 19/1
SECRET
FM FCO 021355Z JAN 31
TO PRIORITY GOVERNOR HONG KONG TELEGRAM NUMBER 3 OF 2 JANUARY.
NO DISTRIBUTION
TOP CORY
FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM HONG KONG COMMISSIONER:
FOR MAX LUCAS VIA ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM GRIFFITHS.
1. MY EXPERIENCE AS ADVOCATE OF THREE SUCH TRIBUNALS IS THEY DEVELOP A LIFE AND DIRECTION OF THEIR OWN WHICH IT 13 IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE. BY THE TIME SALMON LETTERS ARE SERVED AND COUNSEL APPEAR USUALLY THE PASS IS SOLVED BY EXISTING EVIDENCE AND THE TRIBUNAL'S ATTITUDE TO IT. MOREOVER AT THAT STAGE COUNSEL ARE PREVENTED BY TIME FACTORS FROM ASSIMILATING ALL THE BACK EVIDENCE. PEANWHILE THE PRESS HAVE A FIELD DAY TRUMPETING WORLD-WIDE THE DAMAGING UNTRUE BUT SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS (E.G. INEXPERIENCE OF BEA PILOTS: FLAMMABILITY OF OROGLAS AT SUMMERLAND, ETC). BRIGHT SIDE 13 THE REPORT USUALLY GETS IT RIGHT IN THE END AS I AM SURE MR. JUSTICE YANG WILL TOO.
2.
THE
ACCORDINGLY, IN MY OPINION, OUR PRIORITIES SHOULD BE: (A) TO ENSURE LUCAS/BARLOW ASSIMILATE ALL EVIDENCE BOTH PAST AND FUTURE AND FROM NOW ON BE READY TO ENTER TRIBUNAL IF FUTURE NECESSITY REQUIRES AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE:
(B) FOR THEM TO PONITOR THE ENQUIRY AND REPORT SO AS TO ENABLE A PROPER ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE IF AND WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO APPEAR AND ON WHOSE BEHALF:
(C) TO INTRODUCE LUCAS/BARLOW INTO TRIBUNAL AT FIRST TACTFUL OPPORTUNITY.
3. 1 BELIEVE IT ESSENTIAL IN ORDER. TO AVOID ACCIDENTS THAT WHENEVER UNREPRESENTED GOVERNMENT OFFICERS APPEAR, COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENT I COURT WATCHING THEIR INTERESTS. IT WOULD BE UNYISE IF EXTREME TO ASSURE THEIR EVIDENCE WILL REMAIN UNCONTROVERSIAL, NOR SHOULD SUCH APPEARANCE, IF TACTFULLY INTRODUCED, CAUSE PRESS OR OTHER SURPRISE.
4. ONCE INTRODUCED, SUCH COUNSEL (LUCAS/BARLOW) SHOULD REMAIN AND QUIETLY TAKE SUCH PART AS ADVISABLE AND NECESSARY THEREAFTER, HENCE NEED TO APPEAR IF POSSIBLE FOR QUOTE SERVANTS OF GOVERNMENT UNQUOTE RATHER THAN NAPED INDIVIDUALS. MY HOPE HAD BEEN TO DO THIS WHEN
ROWLANDS WAS CALLED IN DECEMBER.
5. YOU SHOULD NOT, REPEAT NOT, ENTER WITH ALL GUNS BLAZING NOR IN
ANY WAY CRITICISE MR. JUSTICE YANG OR APPEAR TO DISAPPROVE OVERTLY OF CONDUCT OF ENQUIRY.
6. BUT IF PROPER AND CERTAIN OPPORTUNITY OCCURS SUCCESSFUL TO
SUSHITTING EVI ENCE IRRELEVANT TO TERMS OF REFERENCE IS BEING
CALLED THEN IT WOULD BE FOR DECISION AFTER DISCUSSION WHETHER IT
WAS POLITICALLY VISE SO TO SUBMIT. SIMILARLY GOVERNMENT VIGHT
WISH TO CONSIDER TRYING TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT BUT VERY SENSATIONAL
EVIDENCE EVEN IF SUCCESS NOT CERTAIN. SUCH SUBMISSIONS WOULD BE
IKEASURABLY MORE DIFFICULT UNLESS STEPS IN PARAGRAPHS 2, 3, 4
AND 5 ABOVE HAVE BEEN TAKEN FIRST.
7. AS AGREED AT OUR FEETING WITH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SHOULD DE VERY SLOW TO HINDER INVESTIGATIVE ROLE OF COMISSION
SAVE ON SECURITY GROUNDS OR BY PERSUASION. THIS IS DIFFERENT
ALTOGETHER FROM WHAT TTITUDE IT TURNS OUT TO BE WISE TO TAKE TO
CALLING ALL IRRELEVANT BUT SENSATIONALLY DAMAGING EVIDENCE.
3. NATURALLY MP. JUSTICE YANG VILL TEND SOTIONALLY TO SUPPORT
HIS OWN CHOSEN COUNSEL PUT HE WILL NOT DO SO WHEN BEVERIDGE IS
PLATELY WRONG. MOREOVER HE WILL SUPCONSCIOUSLY (AND I BELIEVE RIGHTLY) FLAME BEVERIDSE FOR SOME OF EXISTING CRITICISK DY THE
INFORMED PUBLIC OF EXPENSE AND PROLIXITY OF TRIBUNAL AND WILL DE
SYMPATHETIC TO MOVES TO SHORTEN PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED SUBMISSION IS
CLEARLY RIGHT AND PLACES BLAKE ON COUNSEL AND NOT HIMSELF.
9. THE AIR MUST TE TO MOTIVATE MR. JUSTICE YANG TO REGAIN PERSONAL
CONTROL OF DIRECTION OF TRIBUNAL AND NOT CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT
HE MUST JUST SIT QUIETLY AND JUDGE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO HIP.
HE IS VIEVING THE PROCEEDINGS AS ADVERSARIAL WHEREAS THEY PROPERLY SHOULD BE INQUISITORIAL, STEERED BY HIN PERSONALLY (NOT HIS COUNSEL) WITH COUNSEL CALLING AND/OR CROSS-EXAMINING SUCH EVIDENCE AS
YANG WISHES AT TO DO.
10. IF YOUR JUDGE'ENT 13 IT THE MOVENT IN PARAGRAPH 2(C) ABOVE
HAS NOT YET ARRIVED, THEY SO DS IT. **
CARRINGTO