A
hillegations are far-fetched and confused; Home Office advise that those which are comprehensible have mostly been aired already
during the course of Osman's five unsuccessful habeas corpus applications (a sixth application is pending). Cahill has received
short departmental replies, as was agreed in response to my submission of 16 July; a flood of letters from him to the Home
Office has been dealt with similarly.
B 5
с
D
kidnapping.
5 On 3 September, Cahill wrote to Sir John Coles, alleging that the Hong Kong Attorney General and DPP had engaged in bribery and
Mr Burns replied on 16 September, rejecting the
allegation. Cahill has returned to the charge in his latest letter,
of 24 September, asking Mr Burns to "confirm" his position and to
comment on the possible activities of Warwick Reid, former Deputy
Crown Prosecutor involved in the early stages of investigation of
the Osman case, and subsequently jailed on unconnected charges of
corruption.
Argument
6 Cahill is undoubtedly in Osman's pay; he is playing the game of
luring a British Government Official into responding to his
outlandish allegations with a statement which might be construed as
casting new light on the case, and form the basis for yet more legal
action to avoid Osman's extradition. It would be most unfortunate
if we allowed ourselves to fall into this trap; the only certain way
to avoid it is to refuse to be drawn. We have secured Cahill's
written statement that he does not accuse the FCO or any of its
officials of corruption, and have no interest in making further substantive comment; indeed, to do so could risk influencing the
handling of Osman's case, which must still be considered sub judice.
It is perfectly valid for us to continue to take the line that
allegations of the sort Cahill wishes to make should be aired in the
courts.
BR3ABY
P.B. Yu
PB Yaghmourian