TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 504

CONFIDENTIAL

25

TREASURY

SOLICITO

Our reference

A.81/318/JBB

Your reference HKK 380/1

R D Clift Esq

Hong Kong and General Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office London SW1

Bay Cit

Jea

BLAKER v INGRAMS AND OTHERS

Matthew Parker Street London SW1H 9NN

Telegrams Proctorex London SW1

Telephones

01-233 7694

SWITCHBOARD 01-233 3000 DIRECT LINE Telex 917564

Duncan Watson

26th August 1981

нек

8208 See Hkk 300/2 19.82 45

38011

*Y KI 5}

^ 3 SEP1981

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

24

No

PA.

Action Teken

16.4.E.

18/9

PCA 18/4

Thank you for your letter of the 25th August with enclosed copy letter

from Mr Jones.

see

十

+(28

*(copy enclosed)

WITH 13A

X

*

Bi

You ask for my comments on the Crown Solicitor's reply, and I have one

general comment. In the second paragraph of his letter, the Crown

Solicitor says that he has no objection to the documents being produced

on discovery, save in respect of two records which I referred to in my

letter to John Mallinson of the 19th June. In the first place, these

documents would not be produced 'on discovery' because they are not in the

possession of either the Plaintiff or the Defendants. They would only

be produced, subject to any claim of public interest immunity which might

be made, if a subpoena duces tecum were to be served upon the Secretary of

State particularising them. Thus, none of the documents would be

produced until the trial of the action, and it may well be that because the

Defendants do not know the nature of the documents which might, of course,

be very unhelpful to them, and the Plaintiff does not need them to make

his case, no subpoena will be served. If, on the other hand, production

of them is sought by the Defendant magazine, then I think you would wish to consider again the general grounds which I set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) on pages 3 and 4 of my letter of the 19th June, before advising the

Secretary of State that no claim for immuni

ith

should be made.

WITH (13A)

I think that the Crown Solicitor may not have taken into account the

general class within which the particular documents may fall. For

instance, it seems to me that documents which fall within a class

1