TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 122

RESTRICTED

G

question and of the relatively innocuous nature of the contents,

the damage to our interests from the legal action to prevent

publication would far outweigh any damage likely to arise from the

publication of the document itself. Our High Commission in Kuala

Lumpur have already advised that the Malaysians are unlikely to take

exception to the contents (Kuala Lumpur telno 700 of 1989).

7. Mr Laws also advises that other possible legal avenues appear to

be blocked:

(a)

(b)

(c)

we could not initiate proceedings for contempt of court since it would not be the case that Cahill was interfering

with relevant proceedings before a Court;

prosecution under the Official Secrets Act would be to take

a sledgehammer to a nut;

libel proceedings are not possible in the absence of

allegations against a named individual.

8. In the circumstances, legal action seems likely to cause us much

more trouble than publication of the document. But we should not

allow Cahill to think that we condone his action (or accept his allegations) and a robust reply seems right. Hong Kong Department will inform the Hong Kong authorities of our action for their own

reply to Ms Rita Fan.

Пистиз

J W Guy

DDCMDTOTRD

Ner