TNAG-1694-FCO40-2344-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 87

Date:

Time:

Reporter:

1

2

3

4

5

6

24.8.87

10 11 am

CNB/15

purpose of restraint in Australia can in the light of subsequent events be revived by a simple statement of personal belief by a deponent who makes no pretension to knowledge of the Security Service or its workings. And I think I am not being unfair to Mr Ribeiro if I say that he did not really press this point but rather relied on deterrents, which arises under paragraph 10 (c), the reasons given by the House of Lords and breach of fiduciary

duty.

Mr Ribeiro reminded me that decisions of

the House of Lords should in the authority of DeLasala be treated

The matters which the by the Hong Kong Courts as binding. majority of the Lords, he said, thought still worthy of protection

Therefore, apply, albeit on a different scale, in Hong Kong. there is no reason to distinguish the House of Lords decision and that decision should be followed here.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

that argument.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

In my view Mr Lester virtually demolished

He made a careful analysis of the reasons given by There their Lordships for maintaining the injunctions in England. appear to be four reasons. First, the deterrent effect on wright and any emulators of depriving them of the best market, that is, the United Kingdom market, for any memoirs that they have or might publish. Mr Lester said this argument does not apply to Hong Kong, which Mr Ribeiro accepted although he said that it did not reduce the Attorney's legitimate interest in the Hong Kong market. Second, to maintain the morale of the British Security Service inter alia by preventing public criticism or harassment of members of the Security Service or their families in the United Kingdom. Harassment, that is, in the sense of being named, perhaps unjustifiably, in any such memoirs and finding the task of defending themselves difficult if not impossible. Again, Mr Lester said that this reason has no application to publication in Hong Kong. Third, the prevention of forced entry of any such memoirs into the United Kingdom by prior publication overseas. clearly does not apply to Hong Kong.

Again, this

Fourth, to deter the prior

publication by other newspapers in England contrary to the existing injunctions, publication that was intended to bring

VERBATIM REPORTERS HONG KONG

5-8496480 5-497048 5-8496981 5-8932546 5-8122436

015