TNAG-2389-FCO40-3471-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 112

RESTRICTED

C D

and prima facie evidence of corruption in the FCO". Sir John Coles replied. Further background is contained in Mr Guy's submission of 22 April.

E F 4. Mr Cahill subsequently wrote twice again, on 10 and 15 May. He

claimed that he had not in fact accused the FCO or any of its officials of corruption, but made several allegations about the conduct of the case and the attitude and activities of the Malaysian authorities. He insinuated that HMG had handled the case improperly, in order to improve UK/Malaysian bilateral relations. Sir John Coles gave a short reply, which avoided getting drawn into discussion of such matters.

G

5. In my view, we should continue to limit ourselves to saying, in reply to this and any subsequent correspondence, that the matters raised by Mr Cahill are for consideration in the courts. Although we are confident that the implied charge of misconduct by HMG or British officials is unfounded, it would be wrong to enter into the argument which Mr Cahill is trying to provoke.

P.A. Yap

PB Yaghmourian