CLIFFORD CHANCE
BLACKFRIARS HOUSE 19 NEW BRIDGE STREET LONDON EC4V 6BY TELEPHONE 071-353 0211
TELEX 887847 LEGIS G FAX 071-489 0046 DX 606 LONDON
AMSTERDAM BRUSSELS FRANKFURT HONG KONG LONDON MADRID NEW YORK PARIS SINGAPORE TOKYO UNITED
ASSOCIATED OFFICES BAHRAIN SAUDI ARABIA
YOUR REFERENCE
IN REPLY PLEASE QUOTE
L91/2242/JZ
CPM/C1528/082/TRWW
Treasury Solicitor
Queen Anne's Chambers
28 Broadway
London SW1H 9JS
For the attention of Jonathan Ziegel
DATE
25 June 1991
ARAB EMIRATES
Dear Jonathan,
-
Re: R v The Governor of H.M. Prison, Brixton Ex Parte Osman In the Matter of an Application by Lorrain Esme Osman for Judicial Review
I understand that a file has recently come to light in the Attorney General's Chambers which contains four telegrams. These telegrams were not included in the schedule of documents attached to the certificate of the Hong Kong Chief Secretary as part of the proceedings preliminary to the substantive U.K. 4 hearing. I understand that all the telegrams were copied to the FCO. However, the telegrams do not appear in the schedule of documents attached to the certificate filed by the U.K. Government either. We are obviously concerned about this apparent failure to disclose the telegrams and would be interested in your views as to how the matter should be dealt with. I enclose copies of the four telegrams for your information. I should be grateful if you could make enquiries to discover whether the telegrams are, in fact, on the FCO's files.
We take the view that the four telegrams do not come within the ambit of the documents ordered to be disclosed by Parker LJ in U.K. 3 and there has thus been no breach of that Order. I attach copies of Messrs. Macfarlanes notes of the proceedings before Parker LJ. It is clear from these notes that although the Order encompassed documents that related to "what went on between the Magistrates Court and the Home Office, and the Home Office or other Government Departments and the Government of Hong Kong" those documents were to be relevant to the question of "what was said by whom to whom, and at what date" in respect of the proceedings before and the precise nature of the evidence shown to the Bow Street Magistrate. four telegrams relate to a completely different matter, namely the question of the publication of the Noordin Committee Report in Malaysia. There can thus be no complaint by Osman that Parker LJ's Order was breach.
The
However, we believe that the existence of the telegrams should be disclosed to Osman. This duty to disclose arises from the U.K. 4 proceedings. The telegrams appear to be encompassed in the class of documents referred to at paragraph 4 (E) of the certificate of Sir Piers Jacobs, being correspondence between the High Commission in Kuala Lumpa
A LIST OF THE NAMES OF THE PARTNERS IS OPEN TO INSPECTION AT THE ABOVE OFFICE
REGULATED BY THE LAW SOCIETY UNDER THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 1986
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.