HOFC034/15
PP FCO
Sear
Melift 25
HKK So
380/2
M STOPPY NO. 31
15 FED
DESK OFFC
INDEX
I Arry Ph. Bunous
Enter com marked
wf
& by w/ all wels
done
AF Ish
T+2 / 1124 / WKGD
NO DISTRIBUTION
RR HØNGAID,
GR 200
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG 15100ØZ FEB 82
TO PRIORITY FCO
TELEGRAM NUMBER 140 OF 15 FEBRUARY
INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE LONDON
FOR CLIFT FROM GOVERNOR
26
HONGAID'S TELNO 88: THE BLAKER/PRIVATE EYE CASE
HKK 380/3801980
HKK 380/3 38 1988 HKK380/3
Se
(28
HKIT 380/3 (36A)
1980
1. WE WONDER HERE/WHETHER BLAKER'S TELEGRAMS TO ME NUMBERS 536 AND 542, AND MY 853 ALL OF JULY 1980 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE. AS SEEN FROM HERE, ALTHOUGH SENT AFTER THE LIBEL, THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT I DECIDED TO APPOINT THE MACLENNAN
ENQUIRY WITHOUT INSTRUCTION OR PERSUASION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
FROM BLAKER.
2. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THEIR PRODUCTION MR BLAKER'S COUNSEL
MIGHT CONSIDER THEM MORE EFFECTIVE THAN AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SIR JACK. OBVIOUSLY WE HOPE THEY WOULD NOT BECOME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.
3. WE OF COURSE WANT TO BE AS HELPFUL AS POSSIBLE, AND IF COUNSEL PREFER AN AFFIDAVIT BY SIR JACK, I HAVE NO OBJECTION, THOUGH ITS CONTENTS SHOULD BE CLEARED WITH US BY TELEGRAPH BEFORE
DELIVERY.
4. 1 WOULD CERTAINLY PREFER THAT SIR JACK WAS NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN COURT BECAUSE OF THE DANGER OF HIM BEING CROSS-EXAMINED
WIDELY. IF THE ALTERNATIVE WERE THE PRODUCTION OF THE TELEGRAMS
IN COURT I WOULD PREFER IT.
MACLEHOSE
NNNN