The second separate issue is equally without merit. It also
turns upon whether the offences are extraditable crimes. The
particulars of offence of the corruption offences include the
allegation that the "gift, fee, reward or commission" was "for
or otherwise on account of" Mr. Osman. It is contended that the
inclusion of the latter phrase will allow Mr. Osman to be tried
in Hong Kong for an offence which does not constitute a crime in
the United Kingdom. In Mr. Osman's third application for habeas
corpus, Parker L.J. accepted that this contention was correct.
However, Mr. Nichols QC, for the Hong Kong Government, then gave
an undertaking that before proceeding with any of the bribery
charges they would cause the offending words to be struck out.
There is no reason to think that that undertaking will not be
complied with at the trial of Mr. Osman in Hong Kong. The fact
that particulars of the relevant offences in the Schedule to the
Order for Return include the offending words does not mean that
the Hong Kong Government are released from their undertaking.
Again for there to be an extraditable crime, the critical issue
is the conduct that it is alleged Mr. Osman committed not the
28