10:54
071 2424221
'92 17:51 CLIFFORD CHANCE
ROBIN SIMPSON QC
002
P.3
R -v- GOVERNOR BRIXTON PRISON, EX PARTE OSMAN
SKELETAL - ARGUMENT
:
1. The Applicant's case is that the accusation against him in the charges for which his extradition is now sought is not made in good faith in the interests of justice and that, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be unjust or oppressive to return him for trial in Hong Kong. It is submitted therefore that thé applicant is to be discharged under Section 11 (3) Extradition Act 1989 ("EA").
(c) of the thể
2. The charges against the Applicant relate to:-
(a) Loans from BMFT, to the Carrian group between December 1979 and December 1983.
(2) Allegedly false accounting documents prepared between June 1980 and June 1983.
(3) Corrupt advantages allegedly accepted between July 1980 and November 1981 (ex parte Öşman (1990) 1 WDR 277 at 287 b-c).
3. The charges cannot be understood without a full consideration of the history of the bank, its political purposes and ties, and its method of operations, in particular, the checks and balances: of its reporting systems and the supervisory control exercised by the central bank of Malaysia, Bank Negara.
ΕΣ
4. The ground relied upon by
upon by the applicant is that 'the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice" pursuant to Section 11(3)(c) of the EA. The fact: that the court of committal has found
has found (a) the existence of jurisdiction in the requesting country, and (b) a prima facie case against an accused, does not establish the affirmative, that! the accusation was made in good faith in the interest of; justice, nor that it would not be unjust to return him to the requesting country (per Union of India -v- Narang (1978) AC 247 at 280 f-h). This ground can only be taken for the first time before the High Court: hence the existence of these two factors is a prerequisite for an application for habeas corpus under this ground.
-
5. There is no presumption of good-faith on the part of the: requesting country to be implied in extradition cases ( per Zacharia v Republic of Cyprus (1962) 2 AER 438 at 449). It is for: the Applicant to show on the balance of probabilities a lack of good-faith on the part of the party requesting his extradition (per Narain v DPE (1987) 70 ALR 697).The lack of good faith
1