S 363
HOME OFFICE
Queen Anne's Gate London SW1H 9AT
Direct line 071-273 Switchboard 071-273 3000
John Morris Esq
Hong Kong Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
LONDON SW1A 2AH
Your reference
Our reference
Date
HKD 384/1
Dear Joha
LORRAIN OSMAN
INLA
1/4
39
catur Yaghmanian, SEAD ✓ Ihr Parker, Asst. Leg. Adv.
+ Enter.
25 March 1992
j4/4
08 APR 1992
гв
-
Thank you for your letter of 26 February about the question of referring Mr Cahill's case to the DPP.
We have now had a chance to discuss this with our legal advisers. Under the terms of section 12(3) of the Extradition Act 1989 an order for return cannot be made while a person is either serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention or is charged with an offence. If as a result of any such enquiries by or on behalf of the DPP criminal proceedings were to be taken against Osman an order for his return could not be made until the charge had
There is no bar under been disposed of.
the 1989 Act to a person's extradition where he is a witness in proceedings taking place here but one should not rule out the possibility of a witness summons being issued against Osman in any proceedings arising from the DPP's involvement and the possibility then of further argument as to whether Osman should be removed in the face of a court order requiring him to give evidence.
It may well be that it is not possible to stop DPF engries being made which may or may not reveal that difficulties of the kind referred to above might be presented in proceeding with Osman's extradition. However, at least last year the FCO accepted advice that action under the Official Secrets Act would ba sledgehammer to crack a nut. It seems to us that the important point from our point of view is that all concerned in deciding to put the matter to the DPP and the Attorney General should be aware of the possible implications of action for Osman's case itself. Further you will obviously wish to take into account the political capital which Mr Cahill will be able to make out of the matter being referred to the DPP for consideration under the Official Secrets Act.
a
We also need to consider whether in reply to various letters which Mr Cahill has sent to us the opportunity should be taken to send another warning shot across his bows over further circulation of summaries of the FCO telegrams or indeed of the telegrams themselves. We feel there is something to be said for doing this but should be grateful for your views on what we intend to say. If the matter is to be referred to the DPP we should have to be careful not to say anything which affected his