A
B
C
D
E
F
in Hong Kong as we have explained, there are protective
provisions as to the admission of depositions taken abroad.
There is no reason to suppose that Osman would not obtain a
proper consideration of those provisions.
That documents had become "missing" since December
1986 was discovered on 15 October, 1990 when inspection
pursuant to the Order of 20 September, 1990 was made.
There is no discernible reason why the Order could not have
been sought earlier than it was. Had it been, the
documents may not have become "missing". However that may
be (and we shall revert to it) the circumstance or event of
documents having become "missing" does not persuade us that
it would be unjust to return Osman. Although the
description of the documents given by Mr. Allison suggests
that many of them may be relevant to Osman's defence, it is
a matter of speculation whether they are so. The position
is different from that in Kakis where Lord Diplock was able
to say (at p 784A):
"It would detract significantly from the fairness of his trial if he were deprived of the ability to adduce the evidence of the only independent witness who could speak to it."
G
H
We can make no such statement as to the documents
because whether the absence of the documents would be a
significant detraction is necessarily unknown. However
that may be, and we recognise that the point is a harsh
one, we are not prepared to assume that BBMB will not trace
the documents. BBMB is subject to the tardily obtained (as
30