ASSN
A
B
C
certificates.
This being so, the test indicated in the
speeches in Air Canada v. The Secretary of State for Trade
[1983] 2 AC 394 was particularly apposite. The relevant
passages from the speeches in that case have already been
cited and applied by Mann L.J. in his judgment of 15th
November 1990, on an earlier application by Mr. Osman and I
will therefore not repeat them. They make clear that
where, as is the case here, there is a properly established
objection to the production of a class of documents on the
grounds of public interest immunity the court should not
inspect the documents unless satisfied the documents are
likely to contain material which would give substantial
support to the party seeking disclosure. This is not the
case here.
D
E
F
G
H
In
It has been borne in mind that if and when Mr. Osman is
returned to Hong Kong, he will face criminal proceedings.
criminal proceedings a different balancing exercise is required
from that in civil proceedings. This is a matter which was
dealt with by Mann L.J. in a separate judgment, in respect of a
similar application by Mr. Osman on 14th November 1990. At
page 9 of the transcript Mann L.J. made the following statement,
with which I would respectfully agree:
"I acknowledge that the application of public immunity
doctrine in criminal proceedings will involve a different balancing exercise to that in civil proceedings Suffice it to say for the moment that a judge is balancing on the one hand the desirability of preserving the public interest in the absence of disclosure against, on the other hand, the interests of justice. Where the interests of justice arise in a criminal case touching and concerning liberty or conceivably on occasion life, the weight to be attached to the interests of justice is plainly very great indeed."
It is, however, relevant to point out, that it would also
13