SEP 08 '87 14:45 HERBERT SMITH HK
26
"The publication of any narrative prepared or contributed to by the 2nd Defendant [that is Mr. Wrignt] which is based upon information available to him as a senior member of the British Security Service will be likely to cause unquantifiable damage by reason of the disclosures involved. Additionally, it would clearly damage the work of the British Security Service and thereby the national security of the United Kingdom in the following further respects:-
(a) The intelligence and security
services of friendly foreign
countries with which the British Security Service is in liaison would be likely to lose confidence in its ability to protect classified information;
:
(b) The British Security Service
depends upon the confidence and cooperation of other organisationa and persons, That confidence
I
would suffer serious damage should the 2nd Defendant reveal information of the nature described above;
(c) There would be a risk that other "persons who are or have been
employed in the British Security Service who have had access to similar information might seek to .publish it."
Having regard to subsequent events only paragraph 10(c) remains relevant today !
}
The issue for this appeal is to determine whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion when he considered the balance of convenience between two competing interests on the principles enunciated in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.(21), The court in its appellate jurisdiction is not entitled to substitute its own.
(21) 1975 AC 396
...
•
+
P.10
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.