TNAG-2652-FCO40-3845-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 80

RESTRICTED

B

C

ດ

5

The court held that it would not make the FCO a party to proceedings purely for the purpose of discovery. It was highly

unlikely that the FCO documents were any more probative than the

Hong Kong documents which the court had been permitted by HKG to

inspect. Public interest immunity had been properly claimed by means of two certificates, and the court would not inspect documents unless they were likely to contain material which would be of assistance to the applicant.

6 Mr Cahill's latest letters and enclosures essentially repeat the

arguments and alleged evidence produced by Osman's Counsel in the

seventh habeas corpus application. Mr Cahill has repeated his

allegations (in many cases offensively) in telephone conversations

with the press offices of the FCO, Home Office and No 10. All have

limited their responses to noting that such matters are for the

courts, and that we have no comment. In his latest exchange with

the FCO duty officer, Mr Cahill appears to have lost his

self-control.

D

Argument

7 Mr Cahill has no locus standi in the Osman case (although no

doubt he is in Osman's pay to whip up public concern on his behalf),

and we need not respond to allegations which have come before the

courts and been rejected. As Osman will almost certainly seek leave

to appeal to the House of Lords, we should not comment on the

substance of the case.

In

8 There is no reason to think that Mr Cahill will be any more

successful now than in the past in his attempts to make the Osman

case a matter of significant public or parliamentary interest. response to any enquiries, Ministers might draw on the attached background paper.

G W Hewitt

МАЗАВВ

RESTRICTED