TNAG-1694-FCO40-2344-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 68

SEP 08 87 14:46 HERBERT SMITH HK

28

Before the House of Lords it was agreed that

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 that damages could provide an adequate remedy for the object of the proceedings is to obtain a permanent injunction in order to act as a deterrent 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 the defendants have the right to publish now.

1

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 Burepi w Conven

Invoked

the

་

defendente' Kertehin the public interest for freedom of speech. Article 19 provides:-

**

Article 19

t

"

1

會

Everyone shall have the right to

hold opinions without interference.

Everyone shall have the right to

freedom of expression, this right

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

י

P.12