TNAG-2283-FCO40-3283-Attorney-General-for-Hong-Kong-and-the-Hong-Kong-Legal-Depar-1991 — Page 20

CONFIDENTIAL

176607

MDHIAN 5340

(B)

(C)

(D)

YOU WILL RECALL THAT, FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION IN MARCH 1990 THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE APPOINTED A HIGH COURT JUDGE, MR. FINDLAY RETURNED TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WHERE HE OCCUPIED A SUPERNUMERARY LAW OFFICER POSITION AS ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IN DECEMBER 1990, HE ASSUMED DUTY AS THE LAW DRAFTSMAN FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF THE FORMER INCUMBENT, JAMES O'GRADY, THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD, FINDLAY RETAINED THE RANK OF LAW OFFICER, WHICH HE HAD HELD BEFORE BECOMING A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE. THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF COURSE PLAYED NO PART IN THE JSC'S DECISION NOT TO APPOINT FINDLAY AS A HIGH COURT JUDGE.

HARRIS IS IN PRISON BECAUSE HE WAS CONVICTED OF A SERIOUS CRIME. MR. HOWELL MAY BE UNAWARE THAT HARRIS RECEIVED LEGAL AID FOR BOTH HIS TRIAL AND HIS APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF APPEAL. BOTH IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HERE AND IN HIS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL, HE WAS REPRESENTED BY ANTHONY SCRIVENER, QC, NOW CHAIRMAN OF THE ENGLISH BAR. HARRIS'S APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE PRIVY COUNCIL REFUSED HIM LEAVE TO APPEAL. HARRIS IS DUE FOR RELEASE ON 30 SEPTEMBER. IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT CAN IN ANY WAY BE CRITICISED FOR HARRIS'S CONTINUED IMPRISONMENT.

AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, JEREMY MATHEWS IS THE TARGET OF ALL PUBLIC CRITICISM OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. AS STATED ABOVE, HE HAD NO ROLE IN THE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST MRS BAKER NOR IN THE JSC'S DECISION NOT TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF JIM FINDLAY AS A HIGH COURT JUDGE. AS FOR THE HARRIS CASE, IT IS PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE THAT MR AND MRS HARRIS SHOULD BE BITTER ABOUT THE AG'S DECISION THAT THEIR SON SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. IT IS HOWEVER OUR STANDING PRACTICE THAT IN CASES INVOLVING A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THE ADVICE OF A RESPECTED OUTSIDE LAWYER IS SOUGHT ON WHETHER A PROSECUTION SHOULD BE BROUGHT. IN THE HARRIS CASE, THE ADVICE OF THE PERSON CONSULTED WAS INITIALLY THAT HARRIS SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED. THE AG FOLLOWED THIS ADVICE. SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER THE CASE BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, THE OUTSIDE LAWYER WAS AGAIN CONSULTED: HE THEN RECOMMENDED THAT HARRIS SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. ONCE AGAIN, THE AG FOLLOWED THIS IMPARTIAL ADVISE.

2

PAGE CONFIDENTIAL