2003
P.4
10:55 071 2424221
JADE ÜLIFFORD CAHYLE
ROBIN SIMPSON QC
arises where proceedings are brought with a collateral purpose or motive and not for the purpose of achieving the administration of justice. (Bates v McDonald (1985) 60 ALR 245 at 245, Willoughby v Elland (1985) 59 ALR 147 at 151, Narain v DPP (supra) and Ret Cooke (ex parte McIlwaine) (1932) 49 NSW Weekly Notes 153 (Aus)
6. The Applicant's case against the Hong Kong Government is that
·with knowledge of a cover-up on the part of the Malaysian Government, its Mnister of Finance, and the parent bank BBMB of resonsibilty for the losses sustained in the BMFL/Carrian fiasco, they have nevertheless instituted criminal. proceedings against him and presented their case for his extradition on a basis which distorts the true situation as they knew it to be, and thereby adopts and furthers the cover up itself.
LỠ
7. Until now, the Applicant's major difficulty before the English courts has been to demonstrate on evidence not the involvement of the alleged "victims" of the charges against him, namely BBMB the shareholders and the Government of Malaysia, but the Hong Kong Government's knowledge of it prior to the laying of the information. (See the
(See the judgments of Leggatt LJ and Mann LJ iri Habeas Corpus 4). The fresh evidence which has recently become available to him, satisfies the criteria necessary to advance a ground for 2 further habeas corpus application which was unsuccessfully advanced on a previous occasion (R-v- Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Tarling (1979) 1WLR 1417).
8.
In the light of the fresh evidence, the signifigance of evidence must be reconsidered, in particular:-
(a) The four "Razaleigh" letters produced to the
Court by the Crown in Habeas Corpus 4.
(b) The FCO documents.
9. The refusal of the Court to permit the Applicant to rely upon the FCO documents in Habeas Corpus 4 already disclosed to him, and for further discovery on the grounds of relevance must now be reassessed. It is for the Court to inspect the documents involved and to carry out a fresh balancing exercise on the issue) of Public Interest Immunity in the light of the fresh evidence. The perception of the Hong Kong Government of impropriety on behalf of the Malaysian Government, the matter which appeared in the FCO documents initially, is now fully before the Court and in the public domain. The grounds for witholding discovery of the further documents on the basis of its effect upon! international and/or diplomatic relations cannot outweigh the liberty of the subject: it is central to the complaint of lack of good faith that it is the exercise of these functions by the Kong: Kong Government for improper purposes which have occasioned the charges brought against him.
Z
(
A