A
B
C
D
E
F
LL
G
provides standards of protection for the individual which are
conventionally contained in such a bill, in particular with
regard to the conduct of trials with due expedition.
It was submitted in Mr. Osman's affidavit that the Bill
of Rights had altered the situation yet again and the
situation was one now where, having regard to the standards
contained in the Bill of Rights, it would be inappropriate to
return him to Hong Kong.
So far as this ground is concerned, Mr. Osman has two
difficulties. The first was why had he not relied on what
would have then been the proposed Bill of Rights in earlier
applications? It is true that prior to 8th June 1991 he
would not have been able to say that it had then been enacted
but he must have been aware of the proposal to enact such a
Bill of Rights and he could have raised what would be the
position if that Bill of Rights were enacted in his earlier
applications if he wished to do so.
However, more importantly there is a second difficulty.
That is that it is, in my judgment, quite impossible to say
that because the Hong Kong Government has passed an Ordinance
which raises the standards of procedure and fairness with
regard to trials in Hong Kong this is a matter which, as a
result of the passage of time, makes it unjust or oppressive
to return Mr. Osman to Hong Kong. I would suggest that the
contrary is obvious. It becomes, if anything, less unjust or
oppressive to return him if in fact there are higher standards
H
1
19
Page 60Page 61