TNAG-1694-FCO40-2344-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 73

Date:

AMD 3011

24.8.07

RECEIVE

10 11 am-3 SEP 1987

CNB/I D

Time:

Reporter:

1

JUDGMENT OF MR JUSTICE N BARNETT

W N

2

3

4

5

6

7

Hong Kong Judgnet

Panz J.

Please copies & Mr. hochs,

4 per ju 257a.

P.3

IED

R. P.

a

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

I suppose that what I am about to say might be termed "'Spycatcher' Episode 5." It is that now notorious book that is at the root of these proceedings, proceedings which have supplied the "South China Morning Post" at least with so much copy over the last few days. But although the book and the subsequent events are notorious, it is still right, I think, that I should set the stage.

He

Those

Mr Peter Wright was the author of the book in question. He was for many years employed by the British Security Service. He retired in 1976 and now lives in Australia. decided to write his memoirs, which include an account, apparently, of what he claims were illegal activities by the British Security Service and of penetration of the Service by Soviet agents. memoirs, as I have said, rejoice under the title "Spycatcher".

In 1985 the Crown, through Her Majesty's Attorney General, whom I shall simply refer to as "the Attorney," began proceedings to restrain publication of that book in New South Wales. Mr Wright and his Australian publishers, Heinemann, gave an undertaking not to publish pending the hearing of the Crown's claim for an injunction. The Crown was unsuccessful at first instance.

The outcome of the Crown's Appeal is now awaited and the undertaking given by Mr Wright and his publishers is still in force.

In June 1986 "The Observer" and "The Guardian,"

two English newspapers, published an outline of Mr Wright's allegations. The Attorney obtained in England an ex parte injunction to restrain further publication. After an inter-parties hearing

of that application on the 11th of July Mr Justice Millett granted injunctions with limited provisos restraining such publication pending the trial of the action by the Attorney against those newspapers for breach of confidence. And I should have said that that hearing and the subsequent injunction were in July last year, A few days later, on the 25th of July, the Court of Appeal dismissed 36 an appeal by "The Observer" and "The Guardian" and upheld the

35

VERBATIM REPORTERS

HONG KONG

5-8496480 5.497048 5.8496981 5.8932546 5-8122436

001