SEP 08 '87 14:44 HERBERT SMITH HK
25
proceedings in: (A) either House of Parliament in the United Kingdom whose publication is permitted by that House; or (B) a Court of the United Kingdom sitting in public; or (C) this Honourable Court sitting in public." #t..
By this appeal the Attorney General seeks to restore that injunction. The terms of the injunction except for one matter which is not relevant are substantially the same as the injunction that was approved by the House of Lords in the majority decision of the 30th July,
At the time when Millett, J. continued the
original injunction in England on the 11th July 1986 against the Observer and the Guardian the element of secrecy had not been destroyed. There can be no doubt that the injunction was wholly justified in the circumstances prevailing at that time. However, since the publication of the book in the United States, Canada and other parts of the world, the contents have become public knowledge. The book is available in the United Kingdom to those people who wish to obtain a copy. Limited copies are also available in Hong Kong.
We were informed that the 1st defendant acquired the serialisation rights to "Spycatcher" through an associate company in Australia, Wewe Limited, which is also - associated with Times Newspapers' Limited. There was no evidence that the defendants have had any direct relationship with Mr. Wright.
upon, an
The evidence for the Attorney Generals based ffidavit made on the 9th September 1985 by Sir Robert Armstrong, the Secretary to the Cabinet for the purpose of the Australian proceedings. In particular reliance is placed upon paragraph 10 which reads:-
די
P.9
<