TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 510

(b)

That certain of the documents concern police investigations or might disclose information to those who organise criminal

activities and, possibly, even the identity of an informer (the Hong Kong student who returned to this country in 1978).

It seems to me that the telegram numbered 609 dated 6th May 1980

falls within this class.

(c)

That some of the documents relate to the conduct of judicial business in Hong Kong or, alternatively, concern the

performance of the function of the Attorney General for Hong Kong in deciding whether or not to prosecute any person or persons. The memoranda dated 7th and 12th May 1980 might be regarded as falling within this category.

In his letter of the 3rd June 1981, John Macgregor expresses the view that none of the documents on the MacLennan case is particularly sensitive. I agree with that assessment, although I have little doubt that 'Private Eye' would make good use of them! However, that is not the end of the matter, because the class within which the documents fall seems to me to be important and a claim in the public interest backed by a Certificate signed by the Secretary of State would be likely to be upheld by the Court.

I should mention, briefly, the letters from Members of Parliament and other communications to which Messrs. Oswald Hickson, Collier and Company refer in paragraph (a) on page 2 of their letter to Mr Blaker dated 24th April. I understand that the Plaintiff already has copies of the following -

(i) An exchange of correspondence between Mr Blaker and Mr Robin Cook MP

(ii)

and

Letters passing between Mr Blaker and Mr Robert Parry MP.

The only other documents in the Plaintiff's possession not already disclosed in his List of Documents is a copy of a letter from, one, Mr Lindsay to the Editor of the South China Post.

Page 510Page 511