A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
That was said in November 1989. The decision of this
court in respect of habeas corpus number 3 was followed by an
application, first of all, to this court for leave to appeal
and then an application to the House of Lords for leave to
appeal.
On 1st February 1990 the House of Lords refused the
petition for leave in respect of habeas corpus number 2 and
habeas corpus number 3. The following day, on 2nd February
1990, application number 4 was made. This again was made on
a number of grounds. One was based on the passage of time
which it was alleged made it unjust and oppressive for the
applicant to be returned. Another ground referred to the
disadvantage that the applicant was put in relation to the
Malay proceedings and, further, it was said that the gathering
of evidence in the Malay proceedings was causing delay.
In the course of this application (that is habeas corpus
number 4) applications were made for discovery. The
applications were refused.
There was a petition made by Mr.
Osman for leave to appeal to the House of Lords in respect of
that decision which was in due course refused.
On 12th December 1990 the fourth application was
dismissed.
The court on this occasion was presided over by
Mann L.J. At the end of his judgment, at page 35 of the
transcript which is before us, Mann L.J. said:
"The principle in Tarling satisfies us that this application is an abuse of process and contravention of statute. For that reason, in addition to the others which we have given, we would dismiss this application."
16