TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 186

RESTRICTED

F

letter of 11 July is his fourth to the FCO on this

also written repeatedly to the Home Office). Не

originally wrote on 30 March, apparently alleging corruption in the FCO. This was rebutted by Sir John Coles in his reply of 30 April.

Cahill wroté again on 10 and 15 May retracting his direct accusation

but making several allegations about the case itself, and

insinuating that HMG had done a deal with Malaysia over Osman in order to improve our bilateral relations. Sir John Coles gave a short reply on 18 June, refusing to be drawn.

Argument

5.

Although we felt obliged to refute Cahill's original allegations

of corruption in the FCO, we are advised by the Home Office that we

should treat all other substantive matters relating to the Osman

case as sub judice; Osman is expected to petition the House of Lords

against the rejection of his latest (fifth) application for a writ

of Habeas Corpus by the divisional court on 22 May.

6. Cahill, who is undoubtedly in Osman's pay, is trying to obtain

sone comment on official paper which he can present as new evidence;

if we allow ourselves to be drawn at all, we run the risk of yet

another habeas corpus application, and further delay to Osman's

extradition. Cahill comes (at least) close to again accusing the

FCO of corruption in this letter. We already have in writing,

however, his statement that he does not so accuse the FCO or any of

its officials; I therefore propose to go no further, in this and any

future correspondence, than reiterating that allegations relating to

the case should be aired in the courts.

MALADK

P.B. You

PB Yaghmourian

с