1
2.
on
In the fourth application Mr Osman applied, as a preliminary issue, for discovery of numerous documents held by the Hong Kong Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth office. 20 June and again on 14 November 1990 the Divisional Court rejected Mr Osman's applications for disclosure of the
The Court documents on the grounds that they were irrelevant. also ordered references to nine documents already disclosed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be struck out on the same grounds.
The substantive argument put forward by Mr Osman in the fourth habeas corpus application was that the accusations against him were not made in good faith or in the interests of justice. The application was refused on 12 December 1990. In so doing, the court declared that the application was an abuse of process and a contravention of statute. They also decided that the lapse of time while Mr Osman has resisted his extradition could not be attributed to the Hong Kong Government. Various arguments put forward by Mr Osman about lost documents, Warwick Reid and the immunity granted to a witness, the unavailability or otherwise of witnesses from Malaysia and the motives of the Malaysian and Hong Kong
The court reconvened Governments were rejected by the Court. on 11 January 1991 when the court refused an application by Mr Petitions to Osman for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the judgements in Six applications were refused.
In the fifth application Osman argued that if he is returned to Hong Kong and convicted he would not be protected from further punishment or prosecution by the Chinese authorities should he still be in prison when sovereignty over the Colony is transferred to the Peoples Republic of China in 1997. also argued that he would be prejudiced at his trial because of the missing documents. The Divisional Court rejected both
The court arguments and refused the application on 22 May. rejected an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords on 28 June 1991. The House of Lords rejected a petition for leave to appeal on 25 July.
On 24 July Mr Osman lodged his sixth habeas corpus application on the grounds that under the recently enacted Hong Kong Bill of Rights he could be expected to be discharged on the grounds of delay. His application was rejected by the Divisional Court on 14 November 1991.
Commenting in the most recent judgement on the successive applications for habeas corpus, Lord Justice Woolf, said " the effect of those six applications has been that there can have been no question, over the period those applications covered, of the Secretary of State being able to exercise his
He added "there powers to return the applicant to Hong Kong."
is no doubt it is deeply disturbing that after this period of time, after Mr Osman has been in custody in prison in this country for far too long, it should still be uncertain whether