TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 507

།།།

ASURY

SOLICITOR

Our reference

Your reference 400/81/160

CONFIDENTIAL

Matthew Parker Street London SW1H 9NN

Telegrams Proctorex London SW!

Telephones

01-233 7694

SWITCHBOARD 01-233 3000 DIRECT LINE Telex 917584

19th June 1981

J R Mallinson Esq

Attorney General's Chambers Law Officers Department Royal Courts of Justice London WC2

Seas foun

BLAKER v INGRAMS AND OTHERS

Thank you for your letter of the 15th June with all your papers.

Now that I have had an opportunity to read them, I have spoken to Mrs Jack of Oswald Hickson, Collier and Company, because it seemed to me that there was a gap in the interlocutory proceedings. The solicitors tell me that Mr Blaker does not, to use the phraseology of Order 24 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, have in his possession, custody or power any of the documents which passed between Hong Kong and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on or before the 23rd May 1980. Indeed, the question of the disclosure of these documents was not raised by the solicitors for the Defendants during the hearing of the Summons for Directions which came before the Master on the 13th February 1981, and it was only on the 6th April last that Messrs. Bindmans wrote to Messrs. Oswald Hickson asking for further discovery of documents which 'came before Mr Blaker concerning the matters in issue'. No reply has yet been sent to that letter. Although it appears from Oswald Hickson's letter to Mr Blaker of the 24th April that Counsel for the Plaintiff considers that the documents may relate to a matter in question in the proceedings, he considers that the Plaintiff's case can be made without them. You will remember that the general rule concerning pleas of justification or fair comment is that the onus is on the Defendant to show that the alleged libel is true or that the facts commented on are acknowledged to exist or are true.

1