A
B
C!
An argument which was being advanced forcefully on Mr.
Osman's behalf was that that evidence should not be obtained
in Malaysia until such time as he was in Hong Kong and had been served with an indictment which set out clearly the
charges on which he was being tried. That that is the
position is made clear in particular by a transcript of what was said in this court by leading counsel on behalf of Mr. Osman in the proceedings which were being heard before Mann
The relevant passage, which appears at page 7 letter B
reads as follows:
L.J.
A
D!
E
F
G
H
"(Mr. Thomas):
That examination of witnesses did not go on, my Lord. We took exception to the gathering of evidence for a trial in Hong Kong while Mr. Osman was still in the United Kingdom and had not been extradited. We took the view that he had not even been charged. We took the view that the proceedings had not been commenced and there was an argument about that. court held against us as to whether proceedings had been commenced; but, I think, there is still an appeal in Malaysia on that issue."
The
In addition there is a citation of leading counsel's submissions in the Malaysia hearing which appears in the respondent's bundle at page 310 which is to very much the same
effect.
If it was Mr. Osman's contention that the evidence should not be obtained in the Malaysian proceedings at any time prior to his being returned to Hong Kong, it seems to me it is extremely difficult for him to contend that he has suffered any injustice or oppression or could suffer any injustice or oppression in consequence of the delay in obtaining the evidence in Malaysia of the sort which he relies
24