A
B
C
D
E
1
on 4 May, 1989 has been and is, devoid of consequence here
and, so far as we are aware, anywhere.
During the course of the proceedings in HC 3 there
on 21 October, 1989, produced at the request of the
court nine documents. Those documents were the inspiration
for the present application in so far as it related to the
motive of the Government, and also inspired the motion for
discovery herein of further documents which was dismissed
on 20 June, 1990 by Leggatt LJ and Nolan J. On 14 November
this court acceded to a motion by the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office that the nine documents were subject to
public interest immunity and were in any event to be
treated as irrelevant. Reasons were given for our decision
("The Times", 28 November, 1990). As was explained in
those reasons we had in the peculiar circumstances, read
the nine documents, and it is right for completeness in
this judgment to record our agreement expressed on that
occasion with Leggatt LJ (with whom Nolan J agreed) when he
said that:
سنا
F
G
H
#
there is nothing [in the nine documents] to show or suggest that the Hong Kong Government had any other motive in proceeding against the applicant than his prosecution for crimes alleged to have been committed by him for which the courts of Hong Kong admittedly have jurisdiction to try him. (Transcript p 20D).
H
Mr. Thomas pursued his application for a writ by
reference first to statute and second to the inherent
jurisdiction of a court to prevent an abuse of process.
The relevant statutory provision was section 8 of the FOA.
10