TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 431

律政司署

政府合署(中座)

LEGAL DEPARTMENT,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES,

(MAIN WING),

HONG KONG.

本署檔號 Our ReF

5/680/800

**YOUR REF HKK 380/1 CONFIDENTIAL 8 December 1981

R.D. Clift, Esq.

Replay.

Explin done

Picklkk 38011

Foreign and Commonwealth Offi Hong Kong & General Department! LONDON SW1A 2AH

has

RECEIVED IN RETISTRY NO. 5. Lips Brett Roots

Dear Dick

DESK OFFICEN

INDEX

No

PA

CGE

20/1

Action Takę i

Afzo

advice pl

14/n

W

18

The Maclennan Case: Mr. Blaker's Libel Action Against 'Private Eye'

31.

See ник 38% 11 о 380/1 © 1982.

3

Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to your letter of 18th September, 1981, an oversight for which I am totally responsible and in respect of which I must crave your indulgence. May I also, on behalf of John, acknowledge receipt of your letter of 26th November.=

Having read and considered the correspondence enclosed with your letter it is clear that I misunderstood your letter of the 15th of July, 1981 which I had taken to be concerned with the question of discovery. This assumption not only arose from the terms of your letter but also from the fact that Order 24 of the Rules of the Supreme Court talks of documents which "have been in their (i.e. the parties) posses- sion". I assumed from the documents that Mr. Blaker would have had copies of all or most of them when he was FCO Minister of State (H.K.). Now that I have had a chance to read the letter of the 19th of June, 1981, from Mr. Bailey I see that the issue is really whether or not to claim "Crown privilege" (or public interest privilege as it is now called) on the basis of the class to which the documents belong. In the absence of Solicitors' undertakings (whether express or implied by discovery) regarding confidentiality of documents my view towards your original query has altered.

I have considered Mr. Bailey's comments on public interest immunity which no doubt prompted your first letter. I have also considered the House of Lords decision in the Burmah Oil case (Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England and Anor (1979) 3 W.L.R. 722) in which the distinction between "class" claims and "contents" claims is elaborated. I must confess that prior to reading Mr. Bailey's letter of the 19th of June, 1981 I tended to view this matter more from a "contents" point of view and I had considered that so long as express Solicitors' undertakings were extracted no harm was likely.

CONFIDENTIAL

I now agree