been in his diary since 10 June and was to have taken place on Tuesday 16 June was cancelled at the last moment.
The Home Office stated in an affidavit that they were not aware that the proposed meeting concerned my case. This was false. Mr. Hartley Booth MP, the author of the standard legal textbook on the law of extradition, had written a letter to the Secretary of State's office on 10 June making it quite clear that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss matters involving my case. Mr. Booth was to have been accompanied by Mr. Barry Shearman, MP (Labour spokesman on home affairs) and Mr. Alex Carlisle, QC, MP (Liberal Democrat).
The Home Secretary has personally told Mr. Booth that at the time when he signed the warrant his officials had not informed him that his meeting with the MPs on my
on my case was scheduled to take place on the following day. So it looks as though his officials kept this information from him for fear that he might be swayed by his eminent parliamentary colleagues. I should be grateful if you would personally ensure that this
that this incident is investigated. It appears that officials have acted improperly in deliberately engineering matters so that the Home Secretary did not have the benefit of the MP's advice before he signed the warrant
warrant for my extradition. If your investigation shows that this was indeed the case, I hope you will ask the Home Secretary to agree to see the MPS and then, in the light of what they have to say, to reconsider his signature on the warrant.
To summarise, I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done in my case by taking the following three specific actions:
1 To review
•
the appropriateness of my public interest immunity certificates which have been issued in my case and, if you think it right, to invite the Ministers concerned to change their decisions so that the documents which would help to establish my innocence can be released to my legal
advisors.
2. To invite the Home Secretary to ask the Hong Kong Government and the French Government the questions set out in my representations to him and repeated for convenience in Attachment "B", and to reconsider his signature on the extradition warrant in the light of the replies he receives;
3. To investigate the conduct of the officials who presented the warrant to the Home Secretary for signature just one day before a scheduled meeting between him and three senior MPS to discuss my case, even though they had not told him that the meeting was due to take place and later swore on oath that they did not know the purpose of the meeting even though there is written evidence that they did know.
None of these actions in any way goes beyond your powers or interferes with the due process of justice. I know that the
3
เ