EXTRADITION OF LORRAIN ESME OSMAN TO HONG KONG
Background
Home Offic
'documen
Mr Osman is the subject of an extradition request made by the Government of Hong Kong under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, since replaced in almost identical form by the Extradition Act 1989, This is a case which continues to attract public interest. Mr Osman faces numerous serious charges in Hong Kong involving conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to steal, bribery, theft and fraudulent false accounting arising out of dealings amounting 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. In support of their request the Hong Kong Government submitted over 30,000 pages of evidence.
He was remanded in custody from the date of his arrest on 6 December 1985 until 1 June 1987 when after a hearing lasting 66 working days, he was committed to custody by the Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate for surrender. In committing Mr Osman the Chief Magistrate said "May I first deal perhaps with the most important factor of all in this case, as it seems to me that most, if not all, of the charges depend on whether there is prima facie evidence of dishonesty. I say at once that in my view there is ample material upon which to say that the activities of the defendant were prima facie dishonest
Under the Fugitive Offenders Act the Secretary of State 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. 8ix such applications have been made by Mr Osman. All have failed.
I attach a chronology of events showing the numerous stages that the case has been through. You will see that the matter
remains unresolved because of Mr Osman's continuing litigation, and that the case has been the subject of continuous and detailed scrutiny in the courts in this country, in Malaysia and in Hong Kong.
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 by the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong on 4 May 1989 of the original arrest warrant issued on 30 November 1985, which Mr Osman argued invalidated the extradition proceedings, was irrelevant. Moreover, subsequent warrants of arrest containing the charges on which the Hong Kong authorities proceeded were issued on 20 January and 25 April 1986.
>