TNAG-2389-FCO40-3471-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 99

"In my judgement, having carefully perused the documents which the applicant seeks to use as a springboard for

further discovery, and taking account of Mr Thomas's

arguments, there is nothing to show or suggest that the

Hong Kong Government had any other motive in proceeding against the applicant than his prosecution for crimes

alleged to have been committed by him for which the courts

of Hong Kong admittedly have jurisdiction to try him.

None of the documents exhibited contain, nor do they

point to the existence of other documents likely to contain, anything to suggest that the accusation against the applicant was not made in good faith in the interest of justice." (Transcript, page 20 D-F)

We also draw your attention to the fact that the telegram in

question is classified confidential and was released to Mr Osman's

solicitors in October 1989 solely for the purpose of discovery in his third application for habeas corpus. I am surprised that you, in your capacity as a journalist, should be in possession of this

document and I should be grateful to know how it came into your possession. The document is privileged and I should like to remind

you that on 14 November 1990, the Divisional Court held that the

public interest required that this and other documents should not be made public. The use which you propose to make of this document is in our view improper. I invite you to reconsider most carefully

any further use of this document. As you will know, there was

before the Divisional Court a Public Interest Immunity Certificate

made by the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs, Mr Francis Maude. This Department attaches importance to

the public interest which was asserted in the Certificate and upheld

by the Court. For your information, you may not be aware that all

telegrams, even on the most routine matters, are sent in the name of

the Foreign Secretary, Governor or Head of Mission as the case may

be. This is no indication of the importance of the matter or the

level at which it is being handled.