documents, which remained untraced at that time, had
necessarily
been lost. The latter issue was put to rest by a letter from BBMB
dated 5 February 1991 ("LEO 1", page 48) and this matter was
canvassed in another judgement of the Divisional
subsequent application made by me on 28th March 1991.
Court on a
43. I am advised and verily believe that since the coming into
force of the Bill, the issue of whether it will be fair or just
to require me to face a trial in Hong Kong is to be determined by
the standards of fairness set out in the Bill itself and not by a
determination as to whether documents which have been lost might
be relevant. I am advised and verily believe that since the Crown
to select documents it considered
has had the
opportunity
relevant and I have been denied the opportunity to inspect the
same documents and to select those that are relevant to my
there has been no "equality of arms" between the Crown
defence,
and me
any
I am advised and verily believe that, as a result,
trial in Hong Kong will amount to a breach of the "fair hearing"
provision in Article 10 of the Bill and it will therefore
unjust or oppressive to return me to Hong Kong for that purpose.
be
44. I am
further advised and verily believe that a lack of
equality
would
also exist where the personal presence of the
defendant is required for giving on-the-spot
instructions
to
Counsel, and such presence is denied.
45.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I will not be
given
19