of Lords for leave to appeal against the judgements in all three applications were refused.
In the most recent application Mr Osman applied, as a preliminary issue, for discovery of numerous documents held by the Hong Kong Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. On 20 June and again on 14 November 1990 the Divisional Court rejected Mr Osman's applications for disclosure of
of the documents on the grounds that they were irrelevant. The Court also ordered references to nine documents already disclosed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be struck out on the same grounds.
The substantive argument put forward by Mr Osman in the fourth habeas corpus application was that the accusations against him were not made in good faith or in the interests of justice. The application was refused on 12 December 1990. In so doing, the court declared that the application was an abuse of process and a contravention of statute. They also decided that the lapse of time while Mr Osman has resisted his extradition could not be attributed to the Hong Kong Government and it would not be unjust or oppressive to return him. Various arguments put forward by Mr Osman about lost documents, corrupt officials, the unavailability or otherwise or witnesses from Malaysia and the motives of the Malaysian and Hong Kong Governments were rejected by the Court. The court reconvened on 11 January 1991 when they refused an application by mr Osman for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. On 25 February the House of Lords refused a petition from Mr Osman for leave to appeal direct. On the same day Mr Osman submitted representations to the Secretary of State, applied for judicial review and lodged his fifth application for a writ of habeas corpus. Any question of discontinuing Mr Osman's prosecution would be a matter for the Hong Kong
authorities.
As Lord Justice Mann remarked in his judgment on the fourth habeas corpus application, Mr Osman's resistance to extradition has lasted longer than any other has ever done. The Court hoped, as had Lord Justice Parker following the third application, that the question of return could now be determined without delay. We share the concern about the length of time taken to bring the case to conclusion. The Secretary of State cannot surrender a fugitive while appeal proceedings are pending. He will reach a final decision as soon as he is able to do so.