Court Practice which contains the provisions of Rules of the Supreme Court Order 18 Rule 19 which is supposed to govern this Dad Owen case. Now the Plaintiff sincerely request the Honou- ra e Court to allow the Plaintiff, a victim of libel case per se, tu amend the Statement of Claim by its discretionary power of inherent jurisdiction. Plaintiff will amend the Statement of Claim in whatever way in accordance with the instructions of the Court.
(5) If the Court considers the word "corruption" as frivolous and vexatious, Plaintiff is ready to cancel and amend it.
(6) If the Court considers that it is not fit for the Court to order the Defendants to ask the Hongkong Government to conduct the resumption of an open court trial of this "unfinished" case with a bona fide magistrate, the Plaintiff could also amend it. This request for such injunction (K)Claim No.4(3) has been based on three facts: (a) On 14th August 1978 at the Foreign and Com- wealth Office, the agent of the Defendants, Mr.J.Thompson said to Plaintiff: "We will do anything for you if.." (b) The Defen- dants said in the defamatory letter of 19 January 1978: "There is absolutely no reason why he should be precluded from taking action in Hongkong..." and (c) Chief Justice Midgery says in his letter: "Lord Goronwy has the responsibility" Since Plaintiff is willing to amend in whatever way as the Court wants Plaintiff to do, there is no incurable problem in the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff.
(7) No high ranking officer has a right to forge a record of conviction of a crime which is non-existing in law to defame a low ranking officer with impunity above and beyond the law. (8) No high ranking officer has a right to evade or to avoid an open court trial or to delay the law court proceedings by abus- ing the process of the Court under the cloak of Supreme Court Order 18 Rule 19 to make himself look like a big man with impu- nity above and beyond the law.
(9) So long there is a definite evidence against the two defen- dants, David Owen and Goronwy, in deliberate falcification of a record by malicious omission and concealment of true facts and by malicious insertion and substitution of untrue facts in mal- icious excision and distortion of Plaintiff's complaint, there is a superbly reasonable cause of action against the defendants. (10) It is the duty of a law court to search and to uncover the truth. Although an open court trial may not be the only means to find out the truth, it is nevertheless the best means so far as the judicious world can devise to search and to uncover the truth. If the defendants can evade an open court trial under the cloak of Supreme Court Order 18 Rule 19, then anybody can smear anybody's reputation with impunity above and beyond the law. It would defeat the purpose for which the law of Supreme Court Order 18 Rule 19 has been established. (11) In a defamation case, the Plaintiff is a victim who has been falsely accused of being convicted of a crime which is non-existing. Plaintiff should have a right to put up the defense. If defendants could go free to evade an open court trial under the cloak of Supreme Court Order 18 Rule 19, it would mean that the Court of Law would help the defendants to deprive the plaintiff victim of the right to put up a defense which is a fundamental human right. How unfair and unjust would it be!
(12) The two defendants have committed the criminal libel, right in London and not in Hongkong. Our British judges are the most respected judges in the world. If a high ranking officer who has forged a criminal record to smear the good reputation of a low ranking officer could go free to evade an open court trial and if a low ranking officer who has suffered such infamous insult and humiliation cannot have an open court trial to clear his
Notary Public. Stale si ima tork No. 318/15 REST..
Qualified in New York County
Page 15LEONIA L. SAC. C** Notary Public, State of New Yek No. 31-8700165
Qualified in New York County
Commission Expires March 30, 1920
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.