TNAG-1996-FCO40-2843-Hong-Kong-Drug-Trafficking-(Recovery-of-Proceeds)-Ordinance--1991 — Page 346

RESTRICTED

FM KUALA LUMPUR

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELNO DISTRESS

25

OF 150805Z MAY 89

RESTRICTED

HKD

385/2

(20)

071340 MDLIAN 0878

TOP COPY

C

?

HONG KONG 8

1.

REFERENCE HK TELNO IMMIG 13 OF 3 MAY AND FCO TELNO DISTRESS 16 OF 10 MAY. WE WILL MAKE PLEA AS REQUESTED.

2. WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE PARDONS BOARD WILL SIT, BUT IT MAY DO SO BEFORE CHOGM, AND INCLUDE THE CASE OF GREGORY AND THAT OF THE HONG KONG 8. IN THE CASE OF A VERDICT AGAINST GREGORY WE HAVE ALREADY PREPARED A LETTER OF APPEAL FROM THE PRIME MINISTER TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE GOVERNOR OF PENANG AND TO DR MAHATHIR. WE SHOULD NOW CONSIDER

AT WHAT LEVEL WE WISH TO APPEAL ON BEHALF OF HONG KONG 8. THIS MAY INVOLVE DISCUSSION AS THE CASES ARE NOT IDENTICAL. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE, APART FROM ETHNIC ORIGIN, IS THAT THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE OF A KIND NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT WHICH SUGGESTS THAT GREGORY WAS A DUPE USED BY CLEVERER AND GREEDIER PEOPLE THAN HIMSELF. ALTHOUGH GUILTY, A GREATER CASE AGAINST THE DEATH SENTENCE CAN BE MADE IN HIS CASE THAN IN THE CASE OF THE HONG KONG 8 WHO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN A MUCH MORE PROFESSIONAL RING OF PEOPLE ACTING ON A MUCH LARGER SCALE. THE POLITICALLY SENSITIVE POINT IS WHETHER WE OUGHT TO OR CAN AFFORD TO MAKE A PUBLIC DISTINCTION IN OUR TREATMENT OF THE TWO CASES. WE HAVE, OF COURSE, MADE THE WIDER ARGUMENT ON GREGORY'S CASE TO THE GOVERNOR OF PENANG WHOSE DECISION WILL BE FINAL. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE OUGHT TO MAKE NO PUBLIC DISTINCTION, AND BASE OUR PLEA ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS AND THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE UK NOR HONG KONG ALLOWS USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR THIS OFFENCE

WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY.

3. CAN THIS LINE BE AGREED? WE MAY NEED TO ACT QUICKLY, DELIVERING SIMILAR LETTERS OF APPEAL FROM THE PRIME MINISTER FOR BOTH CASES SHOULD THE PARDONS BOARD DECIDE TO CONSIDER BOTH CASES IN THE

NEAR FUTURE.

SPRECKLEY

YYYY

1

PAGE RESTRICTED