- 9 -
15933/89
act or omission constituting the offence charged would also constitute an offence under the criminal law of the United Kingdom (sections 3(1)(c) and 7(5)). An added safeguard for the alleged offender under section 7(5) is the requirement that the requesting State make out a prima facie case against the individual, and provide evidence which would be sufficient to warrant his trial for the offence in question if it had been committed within the jurisdiction of the court. Section 7 of the 1967 Act also imposes reasonable time requirements to avoid delays in processing the extradition request and in surrendering the fugitive. Section 8 protects the fugitive from extradition before an opportunity has been given to appeal against extradition to the High Court on an application for judicial review or habeas corpus, which applications have suspensive effect. Bail may be granted in the first instance by the Magistrates' Court dealing with the extradition committal proceedings or subsequently by the High Court dealing with the appeals.
The fugitive is not entitled to make unlimited habeas corpus applications. The common law obliges an applicant to put forward on the first application the whole of the case that is fairly available to him. He is prevented from applying to the court on the same grounds in a second application, unless he adduces fresh evidence. Applications made in contravention of these rules will normally be rejected as an abuse of the process of the court within the meaning of section 14 (2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained in his original application that his protracted detention in the United Kingdom pending extradition and the refusal of bail was in breach of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. He also complained that if he is returned to Hong Kong his trial there will be unfair, aggravated inter alia, by contested evidence taken in his absence in Malaysia, the immunity from prosecution offered to a co-accused who will testify against him and the likely non-appearance of certain key witnesses, in breach of Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention. In subsequent submissions the applicant complained that his arrest and detention were not prescribed by law and that the subsequent proceedings have not been conducted with due diligence in breach of Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention. Reference has also been made by the applicant to Article 5 paras. 2 and 4 of the Convention in respect of an alleged failure to provide him with full information about the criminal proceedings against him in Hong Kong and an alleged inability, as a result, to test the lawfulness of his detention in the United Kingdom effectively. Further references were made by the applicant to Article 5 para. 1 (a) and (c) and Article 8 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 19 December 1989 and registered on 21 December 1989. On 6 February 1990 the President of the Commission granted the applicant's request that the application be given precedence under Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure.