se the (quite unjustified) suspicion that some possibly important do ments have been concealed. This suspicion may be intensified by the fact that we are referring to four additional telegrams which, inevitably, we do not intend to let them see. They will surely find it difficult to comprehend that the Hong Kong Government is disclosing the existence of documents to correct details on the schedule to a certificate whose function has already been performed in proceedings which have long been completed.
As far as the UK's own position is concerned, our conclusion is that in May 1990 a bona fide view was reached that these four documents were not discoverable. We are advised by Treasury Counsel that there is no reason to second guess that view now and no legal duty or reason of propriety in this jurisdiction to disclose the existence of these documents. If the existence of the documents is nevertheless disclosed to Mr Osman's solicitors by the Hong Kong authorities we would face the difficulty of explaining why we and the Hong Kong Government took a different view of the relevance of the four telegrams.
Finally, it may be the case that, at the end of the day, disclosing the existence of the four telegrams will not damage the efforts to secure Mr Osman's extradition. However, it is no doubt all too well recognised in Hong Kong that such disclosure is bound to be seized upon by Mr Osman's solicitors and supporters as a remarkable opportunity for further publicity, allegations and possibly litigation. Moreover, there must be a serious risk that the integrity of the objective would be lost on some sections of the press which would suspect that material evidence had been successfully concealed, while those sections of the press able to grasp its subtlety would nevertheless conclude that Mr Osman had been handed a damaging publicity coup and wittingly furnished with possible grounds for further habeas corpus proceedings. undesirable consequences seem to us all the more regrettable because they would stem from an action which, while laudable in its objective of acting justly and with scrupulous integrity, is in reality unnecessary because it is not an action required by any legal duty or practical considerations of the interests of justice.
These
BLIND COPIES:
Mr Yaghmourian, SEAD
Mr Morris, HKD
Ms Barrett, Assistant Legal Adviser
Yours faithfully, Nigel Parker
ND Parker
Legal Advisers