3.
he is to be returned to Hong Kong. However, when you look at the history
it appears clear to me that this is a situation that Mr Osman has brought upon himself by his own actions, as the result of a deliberate course of conduct upon which he has embarked designed to use the machinery of this court and other courts as a way of preventing his return to Hong Kong.
It appears to me that this is a situation where he has embarked upon a war of attrition designed to wear down the Hong Kong Government so as to prevent his return. I have no doubt whatsoever that when the present application is considered in the context of previous applications it is indeed an abuse of process of the court. It is using the machinery of the court for purposes for which it should not be used."
He concluded by giving firm directions that any future application by Mr Osman should be heard with very great expedition.
He-has-
and
Mr Osman's
On 28 November the Divisional Court refused Mr Osman's application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
patitfomithe House of Lords direct for leave to appeal. On 3 Fel, mary 1992 the House of words
8 Feb many Hrosman petition for leave to appeal divent. Mr Osman made his seventh, halwaKES Mr Osman has made four applications for bail all of which have been refused, most recently on 7 October 1991. Furthermore, he has made two applications to the European Commission on Human Rights. The first was declared inadmissible on 13 March 1989 and the second on 14 January 1991. Any question of discontinuing Mr Osman's prosecution would be a matter for the Hong Kong authorities.
Under the Section 11(2) of Extradition Act 1989 the Secretary of State cannot order the surrender of a fugitive while proceedings on an application for a writ of habeas corpus are pending.
Mr Osman has made representations to the Secretary of State. He will reach a decision on surrender as soon as he is able to do so.
27
Janmayr This was
الله الله
on 28 Februar 1992.
A:\OSMANEXT, GU7