15933/89
8
The next application for bail was made on 26 July 1989 in the course of the third habeas corpus proceedings brought by the applicant. In the course of this application, counsel for the applicant explained that a second bail application had not been brought sooner because it was not considered to have any prospects of success. After hearing the parties the Divisional Court rejected the application.
A further application for bail was made before the Divisional Court on 4 October 1989. This application was also unsuccessful. In rejecting the application, Lord Justice Parker stated as follows :
4.
"The evidence before us indicates that there is a great risk that he would abscond. There is no right to bail available to him under the Bail Act, and no reason to differ from the position of the previous court until we have heard a great deal more. It is unusual in the process of trial to grant bail at this sort of stage. Leo (the applicant) has said more than once that he has devoted his entire resources to fighting extradition: there is nothing to stop him doing so, nor am I saying that he should stop, but should it look to him as though he would after all be extradited from the way the proceedings were going, he would face a very great temptation to abscond. Bail is therefore refused."
Proceedings in Hong Kong and Malaysia
At the same time as the proceedings described above the applicant was involved in proceedings in Hong Kong and Malaysia as part of his efforts to stop his extradition to Hong Kong.
The applicant claimed that the evidence of 43 prosecution witnesses was taken in Malaysia in January 1986, three months prior to the final warrant for his arrest issued on 25 April 1986. He stated that their written statements are likely to be admitted in any trial in Hong Kong if the court is satisfied that they will be unwilling to travel there. In addition he pointed out that a main prosecution witness (Ibrahim Jaafar), who was the general manager of BMFL throughout its operations, had confessed to various fraud offences and had been granted immunity from prosecution by the Hong Kong Government in return for his testimony against the applicant.
B.
The relevant domestic law
The law relating to the extradition of Commonwealth citizens accused of criminal offences in another Commonwealth country is contained in the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 (the 1967 Act). Sections. 6 and 7 of that Act provide an informal, emergency procedure for taking someone into custody by the issue of a provisional arrest warrant issued by a Magistrate after sworn evidence has been put before him of a sort that would have been sufficient to justify arrest if the offence had been committed in the United Kingdom. Formal extradition proceedings, however, cannot proceed thereafter unless an authority to proceed is issued by the Home Secretary. Without such an authority, the alleged offender must be released. The 1967 Act respects the rule of specialty and only authorises extradition if the
Page 60Page 61