A
B!
C
D
لا
E
F
G
narrow and technical grounds, but when that application is
looked at in the context of a series of other applications it
becomes apparent that the machinery of the court is not being
used for its proper purposes but for ulterior purposes so that
the applicant can obtain an advantage in consequence of those
proceedings which is collateral to the ordinary purpose of
those proceedings.
I turn, therefore, to consider the history of the
applications which have hitherto been made in the United
Kingdom following the applicant's arrest on 6th December 1985.
The committal proceedings before the Chief Stipendiary
Magistrate proceeded for 66 working days between May 1986 and
May 1987. There were a number of adjournments sought during
those proceedings by the applicant. The applicant put the
Hong Kong Government strictly to proof. However, I make no
criticism of the way the applicant conducted those
proceedings.
I do not consider that anything occurred in
those proceedings which assists me with regard to my
conclusions as to what is the proper nature of the present
application.
Those proceedings were followed, promptly, by the
application, habeas corpus number 1, which was made on 10th
June 1987. Those were long and complex proceedings but they
have to be assessed in the context of the complex facts on
which the Hong Kong Government's application was made for the
extradition of the applicant.
H
12