- 11 -
15933/89
lawfulness of the first Hong Kong warrant, but upon the lawfulness of the provisional warrant issued by the London Magistrate on 2 December 1985 and the lawfulness of the subsequent extradition and habeas corpus proceedings under English law. They point out that a further valid Hong Kong warrant was issued before the Secretary of State. issued his authority to the London Magistrate to proceed with the extradition committal.
The Commission accepts the Government's contentions. It notes the validity of the emergency, provisional warrant issued by the London Magistrate on 2 December 1985 and the validity of the Hong Kong warrant of 20 January 1986, which allowed the Secretary of State to authorise the Magistrate to proceed with the extradition committal proceedings against the applicant. It, therefore, finds no evidence to suggest that the applicant's detention in the United Kingdom since 6 December 1985 has not been in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 second sentence, or generally lawful within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention, the applicant being a person against whom action has and continues to be taken with a view to his extradition.
The applicant also submitted that the proceedings in his case have taken an inordinate length of time. He is the longest remand prisoner in the United Kingdom as a result. He referred to the Commission's decision in the case of Lynas v. Switzerland (No. 7317/75, Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 141) in which it held as follows :
It
"Article 5 (1) (f) clearly permits the Commission to decide. on the lawfulness ('lawful detention/détention régulière') of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to extradition (une procédure d'extradition est en cours). The wording of both the French and English texts makes it clear that only the existence of extradition proceedings justifies deprivation of liberty in such a case. follows that if for example the proceedings are not conducted with the requisite diligence or if the detention results from some misuse of authority it ceases to be justifiable under Article 5 (1) (f). Within these limits the Commission might therefore have cause to consider the length of time spent in detention pending extradition from the point of view of the above cited provision."
The applicant contended that the responsibility for the organisation of the procedures and their progression at a reasonable pace lay with the Government. He stated that he had not assisted the authorities in this, but nor had he obstructed them.
The Government recognised that the applicant's case had taken an exceptionally long time, unprecedented in the United Kingdom. However, they contended that it was the applicant who had been responsible for the continuous proceedings since committal which have led to such exceptional delays. It was he who initiated the four habeas corpus proceedings which have all been conspicuously unsuccessful. At no stage have the competent authorities shown a lack of diligence. On the contrary, they have continuously expressed their concern at the delays involved. Whilst the applicant was entitled to take up every possible legal argument available to him, he cannot then