File
33
HKD 38411
ра
سال
18/3
3.
ZB
EXTRADITION OF LORRAIN OSMAN TO HONG KONG
Background Note
Mr Osman is the subject of an extradition request by the Government of Hong Kong to face numerous serious charges, including conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to steal, bribery, theft and fraudulent false accounting. The alleged offences arose from the dealings (amouting to approximately US$800 million) of a deposit-taking company, which was a subsidiary of a major Malaysian bank. Mr Osman was a director of both the bank and its subsidiary. The Hong Kong Government submitted over 30,000 pages of evidence in support of their request.
་
After his arrest on 6 December 1985, Mr Osman was committed to custody for surrender in June 1987. Under the Fugitive Offenders Act, the Home Secretary must wait for a period of 15 days before surrender, during which time the fugitive may appeal by way of an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Seven such applications have been made by Mr Osman; all have failed.
In the first habeas corpus application, the Divisional Court decided that there was ample evidence against Mr Osman and upheld the right of the Hong Kong Courts to try him. In the second application, the Court rejected Mr Osman's claim that he was immune from prosecution on the grounds that he was a Liberian Diplomat. In the third application, the Court decided that the quashing in 1989 of the original arrest warrant issued in 1985, was irrelevant. The Court further noted that warrants for arrest, containing the charges on which the Hong Kong authorities proceeded, were issued in January and April 1986.
In the fourth habeas corpus application, the Court rejected
Mr Osman's contention that the accusations against him were not made in good faith in the interests of justice. The Court declared that the application was an abuse of process and a contravention of statute. The Court had earlier rejected Mr Osman's application for discovery of numerous documents held by the Hong Kong Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on the grounds that they were irrelevant. The Court also ordered references to nine documents
MA 3ABG