RESTRICTED
not made in good faith in the interests of justice and were
the basis for his fourth application and a request for
discovery of further documents.
5.
The
The FCO resisted the application for discovery on the
grounds that the nine documents were not relevant and were
in any event covered by public interest immunity (PII).
Divisional Court on 20 June 1990 refused the application for
discovery on the ground of relevance and therefore found it
unnecessary to consider the question of PII. Before the substantive hearing of the fourth habeas corpus application, the FCO moved to strike out any further reference to the nine documents on the grounds that they were subject to PII
and irrelevant. In a judgment of 14 November 1990, the
Divisional Court allowed the FCO motion both on the basis of
PII and on the basis that the question of relevance had been
decided by the Court in June 1990. Osman now seeks to
reopen this issue by arguing that the new documents disclosed to his solicitors in Hong Kong justify the
reassessment of the relevance of the FCO documents and a
fresh consideration of the FCO's claim for public immunity.
6.
The possiblity that the Divisional Court will order
further discovery of the nine or other documents is remote. Osman's sixth application for habeas corpus was described by Lord Justice Woolf as an abuse of process and the seventh application is likely to be accorded short shrift. Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider the preparation of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate. Mr Maude signed a PII Certificate on 12 June 1990, certifying that it was necessary in the public interest that the documents
scheduled to it not be disclosed. It may not be necessary for a further certificate to be produced as Mr Maude's certificate was drafted in general terms and the
JCMAAG/3
RESTRICTED