CO129-627-4 Argyle Street explosion- correspondence on claims and enquiries 1-6-1946 - 31-7-1951 — Page 62

No. 1127 (CAA 128/45)

Sir,

COPY.

COLONIAL SECRETARIAT,

Lower Albert Road,

FONG KONG

17 June 1946

62

Subject: Argvle Street Explosion

I am directed to refer to your letter of the 7th June, 1946, and also to your letter of the 26th March, 1946, under reference No. CCS/HK5.

The matter was discussed on the 15th June by yourself, the Principal Assistant Colonial Secretary and the Special Adviser, and you asked that a further letter might be addressed to you with a view to your submitting the Goverment's contentions for the consideratim of your Headquarters in Singapore.

The case for resisting liability is primarily based on the Far Office letter 25/Damages/3026 (0.0.) dated 16 September, 1943, quoted in your letter of the 26th March, which states that "Government do not assume responsibility for damage resulting accidentally or intentionally from acts of war including :-

(a) Action of any kind taken by the enemy.

(b) Aotion taken by the Allied Forces in operations against the

enemy.

(c) Measures taken by the Allied Forces to mitigate the effect of or to avoid the spreading of the consequences of all or any types of action specified above."

It is your contention that (a) and (b) above cover the placing of smmunition in situ and that (c) covers the motion being taken by our Forces to remove the ammunition, although no troops were actually working on this project at the time of the explosion and that the explosion and consequent damage resulted from (a), (b) or (e) or a combination of these.

In the opinion of the Government's advisers your contention is based on an erroneous interpretation of the War Office letter and in this connection it is not without interest to note that the date of the letter is the 16th September, 1943 at which date the writer could hardly have had in mind circumstances such as have arisen in the present case.

W

Reading the letter as a whole one seems forced to the conclusion that paragraphs (b) and (c) can have no application whatsoever to the present case. Para. (b) relates to action taken in operations against the enemy and this must surely be intended to cover truly operational measures by Allied Forces such as directing fire against or bombing or deliberately demolishing (as obstructing a field of fire) the property of one's own subjects. Para (c) appears to be directed at cases such as night arise when emmy fire had ignited buildings and it became necessary to undertake the demolition of other buildings to limit the spread of the fire.

The final words of paragraph (c) seem to throw some light on the interpretation of paragraph (a), they are "to avoid the spreading of the consequences of all or any types of action specified above.

These words clearly must be applied to para. (a) as well as to para. (b) and their implication is that paragraph (a) as well as paragraph (b) was intended to cover "operational" motivities by the enemy, and not to cover such "passive" measures as the storing of ammunition and explosives.

/3.