-9-
right
made, and transactions entered into, without access to the full documentation
disclosed to the Crown under the 1986 Order. The fact that relevant documents
are missing prejudices the exercise of my full
to defend
myself. It must be emphasised that it was the BK Government's own lawyer who
stated that it was "essential and crucial in the interest of justice" that
there be inspection of documents in the categories set out in the 1986 Order.
Having decided not to object to the Order, BBMB presumably considered
carefully its legal obligations as to what documents it was required to
disclose.
27.
In this regard, it is pertinent to keep in mind BBMB's extremely
cautious position with regard to the censoring of extracts it considered
"irrelevant" or "confidential" from documents originally requested by the ICAC
in 1985. Further, the negotiations between the HK Government and my lawyers,
and BBMB and Bank Negara had failed precisely because of their paramount
over the matter of confidentiality, leading to the necessity for the
1986 Order. Against this background, it is reasonable to assume that BBMB
would have (and did in fact) exercise a high degree of care in its selection
of documents.
28.
In the circumstances, the very fact that BBMB
documents for the 1986 inspection demonstrates their relevance.
selected
these
I am advised
the position
by Mr Krishnan, and verily believe to be true, that this was
which he submitted to the Court on 8th and 9th October 1990 in opposing BBMB's
application and, in this respect, BBMB (through its counsel) did not contend
otherwise. I am further advised by Mr. Krishnan (and verily believe it to be
true) that he further submitted to the Court that it was an unreasonable
proposition for BBMB, the party which 4
years ago had selected these
documents, to suggest that I, who had never seen them myself, had the burden
of proving their relevance.'
THE ALLISON "SELECTED" DOCUMENTS.
29. From what I shall call, the "relevant universe", Mr Allison exercised a
second level of discretion in determining which documents would be "material"
for the committal proceedings. In the letter of 12th December 1988 from the
Attorney General's Chambers to M/s. Melville Boase & Co (pages 1-3 "LEO 1") it
was stated that in conducting his inspection, "Mr Allison took the view that The was under a duty to seek out, and require copies of, any information that
a