TNAG-2388-FCO40-3470-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 85

TREASURY

SOUCITOR

THE TREASURY SOLICITOR Queen Anne's Chambers

28 Broadway London SWIH 9JS Telephones Direct Line

Telex 917564

071-210 3462

Switchboard 071-210 3000

GTN 210

Fax Nos. 071-222 6006 - 071-210 3488 DX No. 2318 Victoria

Ms Caroline Adkins Messrs MacFarlanes 10 Norwich Street London EC4A IBD

Please quote

L88/5731/NA

Your reference

CMA/271730/NJH

Datc

March 1991

Dear Caroline

RE OSMAN

I thank you for your letter of 5 March enclosing a copy fax of 1 March with enclosures from the Attorney General's Chambers, Hong Kong. I apologise for the delay in replying.

I note that by letter dated 28 January 1991 Mr Kevin Cahill wrote to Mrs Rita Fan enclosing, inter alia, a copy of a telex dated 20 December 1985, a document which was the subject of a successful claim of public interest immunity made on to the Divisional Court behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the proceedings Osman Habeas Corpus (no. 4). The Director or Public Prosecutions in Hong Kong now asks whether the communication of this confidential telex to Mr Cahill and by Mr Cahill to Mrs. Fan could amount to a contempt of court in the light of the ruling of the Divisional Court in the United Kingdom.

The Order made by the Divisional Court on 14 November 1990 was to the effect that "the affirmations made herein by the Applicant Lorrain Esme Osman and dated respectively 2 February 1990 and 5 June 1990 be struck out to the extent of the passages and exhibits identified in the schedule hereto". The attached schedule referred, inter alia, to all references to the telex of 20 December 1985.

It is my view that the effect of this Order was to prevent reliance on the PII Documents for the purposes of Habeas Corpus (no. 4). Further, I think the Order has the effect of excluding reference to any of these documents in future proceedings brought by Mr Osman in the United Kingdom by virtue of the doctrine of Res Judicata, that is, that the documents' PII status has already been determined by the Courts.

I do not think the Order of the Divisional Court has any wider effect.

In the circumstances, I do not believe that the conduct of Mr Cahill is restrained in any way the Order. It follows that I do not believe that any contempt of Court has taken place.