TNAG-1694-FCO40-2344-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 37

SEP 08 87 14:46 HERBERT SMITH HK

28

Before the House of Lords it was agreed that

for be in

damages would not be an adequate remedy to either side but Mr. Lester canvassed this issue on the basis that damages or exemplary damages could be an adequate remedy. However, in my judgment, I do not see chat damage

that damages could provide an

adequate remedy for the object of the proceedings is to obtain a permanent injunction in order to act

terrent

to other persons who were employed by the Security Services who may wish to emulate Mr. Wright. It is A case that cannot be compromised. Either the Attorney General is entitled to an interlocutory injunction pending trial or defendants have the right to publish now.

A great deal of the argument presented before the trial judge and before us was concerned with the right of free speech and freedom of expression. Reference was made to Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which the British Government adheres and which received consideration by the House of Lords. That Convention' does not apply to Hong Kong, but Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights which is in similar terms to Article 10 of the European Convention was invoked to support the defendente' Meztelin the public "interest for freedom ot speech. Article 19 provides:-

:.

•

I

1.

Article 19:

Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to Sceedom of expression; this right

shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiera, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

P.12