'Cyphers and Secret Documents: Safe Custody Reports and Handing Over Certificates for Secret Documents' [‎95v] (195/523)

22
to make it difficult for information to be procured in future from the Soviet authorities.
Compliance with this request involved not producing in court the original letters from the
Plmbassy. The company wrote to the Foreign Office to say that they had lost their case in
the court of first instance, and that they attributed their defeat in some considerable degree to
not having been able to produce the letters from the Embassy. They accordingly asked that the
veto be removed, so that they might produce the letters at the hearing of the case on appeal.
It appeared extremely doubtful whether production would, in fact, make the difference to
the company's case which they imagined, but it was decided that permission must none the less
be granted. It was pointed out in minutes that the originals of the documents were in the hands
of the company, and that His Majesty's Government were possessed of copies only; that in
consequence production could not, in fact, be prevented, if the company were determined to
produce (the case was certainly not one in which it would be desirable to raise the
Official Secrets Acts); that so far the company had voluntarily abstained from production, but
that only the clearest and most cogent considerations of public interest could justify maintaining
the request not to produce in the face of the company's clear (though very possibly erroneous)
conviction that production would make all the difference between winning and losing their case.
As no such considerations of public interest appeared to exist, "permission" to produce was
accordingly given.
\
Case No. 10.
Memorandum, paragraphs 11 (3) and 20 (2).
T 11560 and 14539/1/373 of 1930.
An action for libel was brought in the courts in Cyprus against the Austrian Consul at
Larnaca, in the course of which it was sought to make him produce documents forming part of
his archives. Upon representations being received from the Austrian Minister in London,
instructions were issued through the Colonial Office that the Consul was entitled to claim
inviolability for his archives, and that his statement that the documents in question formed part
of his archives must be accepted, unless, upon the matter being referred to his Government, the
latter did not support his claim [Memorandum, paragraph 20 (2)].
Subsequently it transpired that certain documents for which privilege was claimed consisted
of letters written by the Consul to private persons, the originals being in the hands of the latter,
and copies only being retained in the consular archives. It was decided that, as such documents
(i.e., the originals) clearly formed no part of the archives, the Consul had no right to object to
their production (i.e., of the originals) merely because a copy had been retained in the archives
[Memorandum, paragraph 11 (3)]. (He might, of course, have objected to producing the copy,
but this question could scarcely have arisen where the original was available.)
Case No. 11.
Memorandum, paragraphs 13 and 15.
E 10066/5570/201 of 1924.
Air. \ . W. Whittal, repatriated from Jibuti in 1924, applied upon his return to the United
Kingdom for the original or a photograph of a letter addressed to His Majesty's Vice-Consul atC
Jibuti b^ a Mr. G. B. ( hapman, by whom Mr. Whittal had been employed to purchase wild
animals for shipment to England. He proposed proceeding against Mr. Chapman for salary due,
breach of contract and libel. Mr. Whittal had a copy of the letter in his possession, and he was
advised to see if this would be accepted, as the original was not available in this country. After
a writ had been issued, Mr. Whittal renewed his request, and His Majesty's Consul at
Addis Ababa was instructed to forward to the Foreign Office the original letter from
Air. ( hapman. At the same time Mr. Whittal was informed that upon receipt of the letter it
might be possible for the Foreign Office to furnish him with " certified copies for production in
court, as is usual in these cases [Memorandum, paragraph 15]. It would be contrary to the
practice of this Department, however, to allow the original document to be out of its custody,
and it could therefore only be produced in court by an official of the Foreign Office, attending
the court upon a subpoena [Memorandum, paragraph 13].
Case No. 12.
Memorandum, paragraph 16 (1).
T 4080/3684/377 of 1931.
Mr. Piatt, former judge of the Supreme Court in Egypt, was being sued in England for libel.
Some of the alleged libels were contained in letters in the possession of the Consulate-General at
Alexandria. Mr. Piatt's solicitors applied to the Foreign Office to be allowed to inspect these
documents. 'There being no objection in the public interest, and the interests of justice
appearing to require it, permission was granted, and instructions were given for the transmission
of the documents to London.