TNAG-2668-FCO40-3865-Hong-Kong-Civil-Service-1993 — Page 69

Mr

ши

1415 ey fr.

Mr Godney has now

sent me papers

forord seprowe

don't need to dowrything

Ms Paris

HKD

else

Br1415

HKA 01611

TECH

From: 1 Miss 199Brooks

DESK

Date:

Legal Counsellor

13 May 1993 Tom.

13 May

kodfrey

CC: R Godfrey! SEAD

APA

35

ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY HONG KONG CIVIL SERVANT

1.

34

Your minute of 12 May with the above title states that SEAD have asked for Hong Kong Department's comments on the basis that the solicitors' letter implies misconduct on the part of a Hong Kong civil servant. That is not how I read the letter. It makes three points (see page two of the letter), but misconduct by Mr Ho is not a point which the solicitors seem to me to have raised.

2.

As Mr Ho is on secondment from the Hong Kong Government to the British Embassy in Hanoi and fills a First Secretary post there, Protocol Department should probably be informed and receive a copy of the papers. It does not appear that they have been copied in on this matter. They may wish to comment on the draft reply.

3.

I myself have two comments on the draft reply. There is a very difficult tightrope to walk between an acknowledgement that the Vietnamese Government was unaware of, and had not given its approval for the Hong Kong investigation on the one hand (see page 2, last paragraph of the solicitors' letter), and on the other hand, the allegations of collusion which would follow an acknowledgement that the Vietnamese Government was aware of and approved of the investigation (see page 3, first paragraph of the solicitors' letter). The draft reply does, of course, deny that there was any investigation. On page 3, first paragraph of the draft reply however, there is a reference to "a blanket approval" which is held by the Embassy. I do not know to what this refers, but I am concerned that it may appear to give colour to the contention on page 3, first paragraph of the solicitors' letter. I suggest that perhaps we should delete this sentence and in consequence the words "In any event" which begin the subsequent sentence.

4. The only other suggestion I have is that on page 2, second paragraph of the draft reply, the beginning of the penultimate sentence is changed. The words "But such enquiries should not be construed as investigatory functions" should be replaced by "But the making of such enquiries is not part of the investigatory functions".

Shelaph brooks.

Shelagh Brooks