CONFIDENTIAL
D
5 In his letter of 19 November, Mr Cahill threatens to publish the telegram; if he does not hear to the contrary within 14 days (ie by 3 December), he will take it that we have no objection to publication. Mr Cahill disputes the sensitivity of the document, on the grounds that significant public dissemination has occured since Lord Justice Mann upheld the public interest immunity in his judgement of 14 November 1990.
Argument
6 We cannot prevent Mr Cahill publishing the telegram if he is determined to do so. Even if legal action stood a chance of
to threaten it at this juncture would give the impression that we attach more importance to the telegram than we actually do. On the other hand, we can hardly give Mr Cahill the green light he is seeking. The document remains privileged. There is no evidence to support Mr Cahill's claim that it has been widely published; he himself states only that he received a copy at the European Parliament in 1990; so far as we are aware, no further publication has taken place.
7 There are several points of substance in Mr Cahill's letter which could be contested, including the fundamental confusion he appears to make between the telegram's relevance to the fourth habeas corpus application and its sensitivity as a classified Government document. As with previous letters, however, a short reply is in order, which avoids the danger of giving Mr Cahill further grist for his ever- turning mill. We have added a sentence in square brackets which points out that the degree of dissemination alleged by Mr Cahill is far from fulfilling the criterion for undermining public interest immunity, as described by Lord Justice Mann in his judgement of November 1990. This criterion was "publication to the whole world", as Mr Cahill himself acknowledges. On balance, we feel that it is worth making this point; but the sentence might be dropped in the interests of brevity.
P.B. Yan
ह
P B Yaghmourian Z
CONET DAGATITI TAT
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.