RUSSELL ĦARRIS, LL.B.
SOLICITOR
YOUR REF.
MY REF.
Dear Mr Merais,
9
52, LONDON ROAD, GUILDFORD,
SURREY. GU1 2AL.
Telephone: Guildford (0483) 62472 Also at London
1과 por may
1990
while concerning the apparently
comprept regai
administration
in Stong Kong.
J
hope objectively set
cut
in
the enclosed Summary
& Events
which
I have
also
bander
a
сори
1
my
te
waite
Los truct
freathermore,
You
Swansea who бихане
на
an
Local
M.P., new favid Howell. I also
a
solicitor
who
used
to bruf
and
behalf of
the Post Office
soliciter formerly practising in
cend
at
your
com
Brew
your
late father.
May
J
please
have
ска
appointinent
to descuss
the matter
with
you after you
bom perused the fummary. Such
релина
would, of course, be entirely objective
discussion
John Moran. Eng Q.c. MP.
Yours sincerely
Hot anis
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO DESKBY 07110OZ F C O
TELNO 1402
OF 071016Z MAY 91
CONFIDENTIAL
E m.
MDF
TOP CO Q DIST
ѝ
PERSONAL FOR PAUL, HKD FROM GOVERNOR
YOUR TELNO 852: THE HONG KONG LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THE HARR
CASE
1.
WE ONLY RECEIVED BY FAX THE LETTER FROM MR. AND MRS HARRIS TO MR. HOWELL, AND NOT MR. HOWELL'S LETTER TO THE SECRETARY STATE. I ASSUME THAT THE LATTER DID NOT INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL POINTS.
2.
THERE IS NOW VIRTUALLY NO INTEREST IN HONG KONG IN THE HARRIS CASE, ALTHOUGH HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON IN SEPTEMBER MAY RECEIVE SOME MEDIA COVERAGE, ESPECIALLY IN THE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS.
3.
ON THE SPECIFIC POINTS IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF TUR:
(A)
THE 111 VIETNAMESE WHO OBTAINED A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN NOVEMBER 1990 WERE REPRESENTED BY A PRIVATE SOLICITOR ASSIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID. MRS BAKER WAS 110T NOT
DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR CASE.
NO LAWYER HAS BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO A DETENTION CENTRE THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO NAMED CLIENT IN THIS RESPECT LEGAL AID DEPARTMENT LAWYERS, INCLUDING MRS BAKER, HAVE BEEN TREATED NO DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHEF LAWYERS. IT IS TRUE, HOWEVER, THAT FROM 26 NOVEMBER 1990 STEPS WERE TAKEN BY SECURITY BRANCH AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO PREVENT MRS BAKER FROM HAVING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS THAT SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED TO DETENTION CENTRES. SHE HAS SINCE THEN, LIKE ALL OTHER LAWYERS, BEEN REQUIRED TO INTERVIEW HER CLIENTS IN THE INTERVIEW ROOMS PROVIDED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE QUESTION OF ACCESS TO DETENTION CENTRES, ALTHOUGH OF COURSE, IT REPRESENTED GOVERNMENT IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
MDHI
17660
5340
(B)
(C)
(D)
YOU WILL RECALL THAT, FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION IN MARCH 1990 THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE APPOINTED A HIGH COURT JUDGE, MR. FINDLAY RETURNED TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WHERE HE OCCUPIED A SUPERNUMERARY LAW OFFICER POSITION AS ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IN DECEMBER 1990, HE ASSUMED DUTY AS THE LAW DRAFTSMAN FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF THE FORMER INCUMBENT, JAMES O'GRADY. THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD, FINDLAY RETAINED THE RANK OF LAW OFFICER, WHICH HE HAD HELD BEFORE BECOMING A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE. THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF COURSE PLAYED NO PART IN THE JSC'S DECISION NOT TO APPOINT FINDLAY AS A HIGH COURT JUDGE.
HARRIS IS IN PRISON BECAUSE HE WAS CONVICTED OF A SERIOUS CRIME. MR. HOWELL MAY BE UNAWARE THAT HARRIS RECEIVED LEGAL AID FOR BOTH HIS TRIAL AND HIS APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF APPEAL. BOTH IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HERE AND IN HIS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL, HE WAS REPRESENTED BY ANTHONY SCRIVENER, QC, NOW CHAIRMAN OF THE ENGLISH BAR. HARRIS'S APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE PRIVY COUNCIL REFUSED HIM LEAVE TO APPEAL. HARRIS IS DUE FOR RELEASE ON 30 SEPTEMBER. IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT CAN IN ANY WAY BE CRITICISED FOR HARRIS'S CONTINUED IMPRISONMENT.
AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, JEREMY MATHEWS IS THE TARGET OF ALL PUBLIC CRITICISM OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. AS STATED ABOVE, HE HAD NO ROLE IN THE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST MRS BAKER NOR IN THE JSC'S DECISION NOT TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF JIM FINDLAY AS A HIGH COURT JUDGE. AS FOR THE HARRIS CASE, IT IS PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE THAT MR AND MRS HARRIS SHOULD BE BITTER ABOUT THE AG'S DECISION THAT THEIR SON SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. IT IS HOWEVER OUR STANDING PRACTICE THAT IN CASES INVOLVING A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THE ADVICE OF A RESPECTED OUTSIDE LAWYER IS SOUGHT ON WHETHER A PROSECUTION SHOULD BE BROUGHT. IN THE HARRIS CASE, THE ADVICE OF THE PERSON CONSULTED WAS INITIALLY THAT HARRIS SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED. THE AG FOLLOWED THIS ADVICE. SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER THE CASE BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, THE OUTSIDE LAWYER WAS AGAIN CONSULTED: HE THEN RECOMMENDED THAT HARRIS SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. ONCE AGAIN, THE AG FOLLOWED THIS IMPARTIAL ADVISE.
2
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL