RESTRICTED
F
letter of 11 July is his fourth to the FCO on this
also written repeatedly to the Home Office). Не
originally wrote on 30 March, apparently alleging corruption in the FCO. This was rebutted by Sir John Coles in his reply of 30 April.
Cahill wroté again on 10 and 15 May retracting his direct accusation
but making several allegations about the case itself, and
insinuating that HMG had done a deal with Malaysia over Osman in order to improve our bilateral relations. Sir John Coles gave a short reply on 18 June, refusing to be drawn.
Argument
5.
Although we felt obliged to refute Cahill's original allegations
of corruption in the FCO, we are advised by the Home Office that we
should treat all other substantive matters relating to the Osman
case as sub judice; Osman is expected to petition the House of Lords
against the rejection of his latest (fifth) application for a writ
of Habeas Corpus by the divisional court on 22 May.
6. Cahill, who is undoubtedly in Osman's pay, is trying to obtain
sone comment on official paper which he can present as new evidence;
if we allow ourselves to be drawn at all, we run the risk of yet
another habeas corpus application, and further delay to Osman's
extradition. Cahill comes (at least) close to again accusing the
FCO of corruption in this letter. We already have in writing,
however, his statement that he does not so accuse the FCO or any of
its officials; I therefore propose to go no further, in this and any
future correspondence, than reiterating that allegations relating to
the case should be aired in the courts.
MALADK
P.B. You
PB Yaghmourian
с