RESTRICTED
G
question and of the relatively innocuous nature of the contents, the damage to our interests from the legal action to prevent
publication would far outweigh any damage likely to arise from the publication of the document itself. Our High Commission in Kuala
Lumpur have already advised that the Malaysians are unlikely to take
exception to the contents (Kuala Lumpur telno 700 of 1989).
7. Mr Laws also advises that other possible legal avenues appear to
be blocked:
(a)
(b)
we could not initiate proceedings for contempt of court
since it would not be the case that Cahill was interfering
with relevant proceedings before a Court;
prosecution under the Official Secrets Act would be to take
a sledgehammer to a nut;
(c) libel proceedings are not possible in the absence of
allegations against a named individual.
8. In the circumstances, legal action seems likely to cause us much
more trouble than publication of the document. But we should not
allow Cahill to think that we condone his action (or accept his
allegations) and a robust reply seems right. Hong Kong Department
will inform the Hong Kong authorities of our action for their own
reply to Ms Rita Fan.
литиз
J W Guy
DECMDTOTEN
Ner