TNAG-1210-FCO40-1513-Hong-Kong-laws-on-homosexuality-employment-of-homosexuals-wi-1982 — Page 81

HOFC034/15

PP FCO

Sear

Melift 25

HKK So

380/2

M STOPPY NO. 31

15 FED

DESK OFFC

INDEX

I Arry Ph. Bunous

Enter com marked

wf

& by w/ all wels

done

AF Ish

T+2 / 1124 / WKGD

NO DISTRIBUTION

RR HØNGAID,

GR 200

CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG 15100ØZ FEB 82

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELEGRAM NUMBER 140 OF 15 FEBRUARY

INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE LONDON

FOR CLIFT FROM GOVERNOR

26

HONGAID'S TELNO 88: THE BLAKER/PRIVATE EYE CASE

HKK 380/3801980

HKK 380/3 38 1988 HKK380/3

Se

(28

HKIT 380/3 (36A)

1980

1. WE WONDER HERE/WHETHER BLAKER'S TELEGRAMS TO ME NUMBERS 536 AND 542, AND MY 853 ALL OF JULY 1980 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE. AS SEEN FROM HERE, ALTHOUGH SENT AFTER THE LIBEL, THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT I DECIDED TO APPOINT THE MACLENNAN

ENQUIRY WITHOUT INSTRUCTION OR PERSUASION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER

FROM BLAKER.

2. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THEIR PRODUCTION MR BLAKER'S COUNSEL

MIGHT CONSIDER THEM MORE EFFECTIVE THAN AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SIR JACK. OBVIOUSLY WE HOPE THEY WOULD NOT BECOME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

3. WE OF COURSE WANT TO BE AS HELPFUL AS POSSIBLE, AND IF COUNSEL PREFER AN AFFIDAVIT BY SIR JACK, I HAVE NO OBJECTION, THOUGH ITS CONTENTS SHOULD BE CLEARED WITH US BY TELEGRAPH BEFORE

DELIVERY.

4. 1 WOULD CERTAINLY PREFER THAT SIR JACK WAS NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN COURT BECAUSE OF THE DANGER OF HIM BEING CROSS-EXAMINED

WIDELY. IF THE ALTERNATIVE WERE THE PRODUCTION OF THE TELEGRAMS

IN COURT I WOULD PREFER IT.

MACLEHOSE

NNNN