TNAG-1694-FCO40-2344-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 19

'SEP 08 '87 14:30 HERBERT SMITH HK

10

算

.1

à consideration of the attitude adopted by the Court in Lion. Laboratories v Evans(4) and by Millett J., and the Court of Appeal in Attorney General v "Guardian" and "Observer" пемарарега (5), The outcome of this appeal will not turn on the burden of proof nor can a balancing of factors be avoided in any event. On that footing our approach should be to determine whether the interference with freedom of expression constituted by the terms of the injunction granted by Bewley J., provision therefor being made by law, is necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security in the sense of the Attorney General's continuing interest in deterring breaches of trust and confidence by members, or former members of the British Security Service. By "national security" I mean the security of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories.

$ 't

As Lord Fraser and Lord Diplock respectively said in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service(6).

1

1

for

"- the judicial process is unsuitable for

reaching decisions on" national security - the executive government bears the. responsibility and alone has access to sources of information that qualify it to judge what the necessary action is."

#

·

These sentiments seem particularly apt in circumstances where

*

It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or

*

otherwise discussed in public." per Lord Parker in The Zamora(7)

(4) 1984 QB 526

(5) 11th and 25th July 1986

7

-

(6) 1985 AC 374 at pp.402 and 413

p.107

..

(7) 1916 2 AC 77 at p. 107

+

་་

}

!

P.11