7 -
15933/89
brought on behalf of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to have himself struck out from the proceedings was granted, after a two day hearing, on 14 November 1990. A further two day hearing of the applicant's renewed discovery application took place on 14 to 15 November 1990 and the application was refused.
The habeas corpus application was heard from 15 to 23 November 1990 and refused in a judgment of 12 December 1990. The Divisional Court held, inter alia, that the application was an abuse of process, contrary to section 14 (2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, as the applicant should have put forward his whole case for habeas corpus at the outset and not have kept back separate grounds of application as a basis for renewed applications to the Court (cf. R v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Tarling <1979> 1WLR1 417). The Court also held that the accusations against the applicant had been made in good faith and that it was not unjust or oppressive, by reason of the passage of time, to return the applicant to Hong Kong. In this connection it found that the Government had acted diligently throughout these proceedings with no interval "which could be stigmatised as 'delay' by the Government in the necessarily complex circumstances of the case". Although the applicant had been entitled to pursue his habeas corpus applications, he had to recognise that they would be time consuming, with inevitable, unpalatable consequences for him. The Court also noted that the applicant's agitated inquiry in 1988 about the lawfulness of the original Hong Kong warrant of 30 November 1985 should have been made in 1986. However no significance was attached to the point because the warrant's validity was irrelevant to the lawfulness of the applicant's arrest in the United Kingdom and his committal for extradition, as had already been held by the Divisional Court when refusing habeas corpus 3. The Court commented, obiter, that the present case did not disclose anything which could suggest that the applicant risked a flagrant denial of a fair trial if returned to Hong Kong, such as might raise an issue under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in its Soering judgment (Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 45 para. 113).
On the application of the applicant, time for seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords was extended to 11 January 1991.
The applicant has been reported in the press as saying that he will do everything he can to prevent his return to Hong Kong to face trial. The Government quoted the report to the Commission at the hearing on 14 January 1991 and it was not contested by the applicant's representatives. He was quoted as saying, "I could carry on like this for ever... I am prepared to remain a remand prisoner for 50 years if the alternative is going to Hong Kong to face a show trial" ("The Times" newspaper of 4 December 1990).
3.
Bail proceedings
The applicant first applied for release on bail on 20 June 1986 to the Chief Magistrate at Bow Street Magistrates' Court. application was unsuccessful because of a fear that the applicant might abscond. At the time of the applicant's arrest the police discovered a Portuguese passport and identity card in a false name in his possession.