SEP 08 97 14:38 HERBERT SMITH HK
17
the defendants are not parties to an immediate breach of duty, that the reasons relied upon by the House of Lords have little application here and that Hong Kong has a particular sensitivity in relation to the workings of Her Majesty's government. In the premises we are entitled to substitute our own discretion which I would exercise
to restore the injunction imposed by Bewley J. on ist. August 1987 and to allow the appeal accordingly.
Hunter, J.A.:
(M. Kempater) Justice of Appeal
2_ntu- འ
•
+
I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusión
of my Lord Kempster J.
LA I ħadd some words of my own only because we are differing from the trial judge in a case
which has achieved some notoriety.
ٹھا
This Court enjoys the immense advantage of
་
deciding this case in the light of their Lordships' speeches in the Guardian and Observer Newspapers case. The majority opinions show two things. First, that there is no substance in the extravagant language which any claim by Government to restrain 'the' press calculated to produce.
"fs' This case involves no attack upon or threat to liberty of speech. It is a case where the Court is faced not with one but two public interests which directly conflict; namely the public interest in protetting the confidentiality of the security service and the public interest in preserving freedom of speech The Court's sole function now is to hold the ring between these two interests as best it can pending
"
P.1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.