>
COVERING CONFIDENTIAL.
·
empty. It was therefore decided that the reply from Sir J Coles should not threaten any specific action against Mr Cahill, but should point out the priviliged nature of the telegram and say that if Mr Cahill made any improper use of it, we would have to consider
whether we ought to take further action.
7
3 In the circumstances, we cannot hope to prevent Cahill publishing the telegram if he is determined to do so. Even if we thought that
legal action against Cahill stood a chance of success, to threaten
it at this juncture would give the impression that we attach more importance to the telegram than we actually do. In effect, the telegram does not contain anything particularly sensitive, and we can use the fact that it was considered during Osman's fourth habeas corpus application to deflect any criticisms that Cahill might manage to stir up. On the other hand, we can hardly give Cahill the green light he is seeking. In my view, a short reply from Sir J Coles is in order, pointing out that the document is still privileged, nothwithstanding Mr Cahill's claims that it is already in public domain, and that Mr Cahill should not make any improper use of it.
མ་
4 I attach a first draft of a reply to Mr Cahill, on which I should welcome your comments.
P. B. You
PB Yaghmourian
COVERING CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.