15933/89
12
complain of the consequential passage of time while these were dealt with by the domestic courts. They pointed out that the applicant made no request to the domestic courts for expedited hearings, as he could have done.
The Commission notes that the length of the applicant's detention and his extradition and habeas corpus proceedings have been exceptionally long. However, these proceedings do not fall within the ambit of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention as proceedings determining a criminal charge, which determination must be made within a reasonable time.
Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention does not contain specific time requirements. Whether the length of extradition and ancillary proceedings could affect the lawfulness of detention under this provision must therefore depend upon an examination of the circumstances of the particular case. This examination in the applicant's case must take account of the fact that several States were involved in the proceedings and that delays were created by this factor over which the United Kingdom had no control. In the present
case two other Governments were directly involved, the Hong Kong and Liberian Government, and one peripherally, the Malaysian Government. Furthermore the fact that the Hong Kong Government had to provide evidence of a prima facie case against the applicant no doubt added to its complexity, whilst at the same time providing an extra safeguard for the applicant. The Commission has also taken account of the voluminous documentation put before the English courts at each step in the procedure and the detail of the parties' submissions which necessitated many days of oral argument. The Commission is particularly struck by certain of the applicant's arguments raised in the habeas corpus proceedings which could have been made at the outset, such as his claim for Liberian diplomatic immunity. It is further struck by the fact that the applicant at no stage requested the expeditious determination of any of these proceedings, as he could have done. On the contrary, the applicant seems to have done everything he could to draw out the proceedings in his avowed determination to avoid extradition to Hong Kong. Although the applicant's case has taken an extraordinarily long time and his detention has been exceptionally long, the Commission considers that, if the applicant insists on pursuing any avenue of litigation he can. find, he cannot complain to the Commission of the passage of time resulting from such proceedings, especially if they are held to be an abuse of the process of the domestic courts, as the Divisional Court held in the applicant's last, fourth habeas corpus application. In this context the applicant's press declarations are revealing : He has stated that he could carry on with these proceedings for ever, even if it means staying in prison for 50 years, rather than go back to Hong Kong for trial.
The Commission finds, in the exceptional circumstances of the present case, that the proceedings, whether taken as a whole, or taken separately at each stage (the committal and each of the four habeas corpus applications), do not disclose any lack of due diligence on the part of the domestic authorities which could have rendered the applicant's continued detention pending extradition in breach of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention.