NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
}
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
PRIORITY MARKINGS
Top Secret
'Secret
Confidential
Restricted
Unclassified
Flash Immediate
Priority
Routine
Trách dudrassae(0) VEDADI] UTU RAJZ
...................
3 April 1978
Despatched
PRIVACY MARKING
In Confidence
En Clair, Code
Cypher
Draft Telegram to:-~~-~-
HONG KONG
No.
(Dute)
[Security classification
fication]
if any
[ Privacy marking
-if any
[Codeword--if any]
Addressed to
telegram No.
No............
And to
repeated for information to
And to:-
SECRET
HONG KONG
3 April 1978
(date)
Repeat to:-
Saving to:-
Your telegrams Nos 406 and 407; YAUMATEI CASES,
We agree generally the texts in your two TUR subject
to the following comments.
2. In the statement, paragraph 3 could be taken to
refer to the Officers mentioned in paragraph 1 as well
as paragraph 2. We suggest this ambiguity be avoided
by making pangraphs 2 and 3 a single paragraph,
3. While we follow the reasoning behind your
proposed wording in paragraph 5, we wonder whether
there is any particular advantage in linking this
action specifically, with the Amnesty. By doing so there is perhaps too strong an implication that the PS/Lord Goronwy-Officers concerned are being dismissed on suspicion
of corruption. We suggest therefore that the second
sentence should end as follows "..... it was con-
Distribution
Files
HKGD
Mr Murray
Roberts
X6X jí k X X X X
Mr Cortazzi
PS
Overseas Police
Adviser News Dept Legal Adviser
cluded that it would be in the public interest to use
CR55 in order to deal with these cases without
further de ba
"
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.