4.
Recently, I submitted written
representations to the Home Secretary. A copy is enclosed. These representations consisted of a personal letter from me, а formal document drafted in consultation with my lawyers and a list of questions which I had invited the Home Secretary to ask of the Hong Kong Government in order to assist him in
in understanding my contention that the charges against me are false, that the delay in bringing me to trial would have occurred even if I had made no attempt to resist extradition, and that I cannot possibly receive a fair trial if returned to Hong Kong. Unfortunately the Home Secretary failed to ask the Hong Kong Government these vital questions. result, he did not consider vital evidence which would have strongly supported what I said in my representations to him. A list of these Questions is attached (Attachment "B").
As a
is difficult if not impossible to understand how the Home Secretary could have undertaken a self-imposed exclusion of matters which were obviously of material significance, especially where they comprised evidence of, from and/or with the Government of Hong Kong (i.e. answers to the Questions--attachment "B"), and submissions and matters which would be made and raised by eminent Members of Parliament.
This conduct of the Home Secretary is made all the more inexplicable by the fact that Mr. Clarke is himself an experienced English lawyer for whom all the principles of English law and the rules of natural justice must have instinctive application, unless these factors, especially the appointment with Members of Parliament, were not known, or, worse, had been concealed from him.
I should be most grateful if you would invite him to ask those questions (and indeed to ask the French Government why it decided not to extradite my co-director and co-defendant, Rais Saniman, since I suspect that the same considerations which prompted the French to release Saniman
release Saniman ought to
to have
have been applied by the British Government in my
in my own case). And I hope that you will invite the Home Secretary to reconsider his signature on the warrant for my extradition in the light of the answers which he
receives.
The Home Secretary acted with utmost haste in signing the warrant. Notwithstanding the detail in my representations, he took less than 1 hour and 50 minutes to reject them and to sign the warrant for my extradition. He signed it at 3:30 PM on Monday 15 June 1992, although the formal representations had only been delivered to the Home Office the previous Friday evening.
He altogether failed to consider my personal letter to him, which was for unavoidable reasons not delivered to him until the late afternoon of Monday 15 June. He did not read it until after he had signed the warrant.
Moreover, a meeting with an all-party delegation of MPS which had
2