TNAG-2084-FCO40-2969-Death-penalty-in-Hong-Kong-1990 — Page 36

the right of the Hong Kong courts to try him.

4.

In his second application, lodged on 8 June 1988,

Mr Osman claimed immunity from prosecution on the ground that he was a Liberian diplomat. The application was rejected on 21 December 1988.

5.

In this third application, Mr Osman sought judicial review of the decisions of the Secretary of State to issue his Orders to the Bow Street Magistrate to proceed to hear the case and of the Bow Street Magistrate to issue a

provisional warrant of arrest. This action related to the decision by the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong on 4 May 1989 to quash the warrant for Mr Osman's arrest issued there on

30 November 1985. Mr Osman claimed that the quashing of the warrant invalidated the extradition proceedings. The application was refused on 17 November 1989. In the judgement, Lord Justice Parker commented "...counsel for the applicant saw fit to make some very serious allegations which, in may view, are wholly unjustified on the material available [and] which ought never to have been made..".

proceedings were prolonged by these allegations. Mr Osman's applications for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused on 5 December 1989 and by the House of Lords on

1 February 1990. On 5 February, he loged his fourth application on the grounds that the accusations against him were not made in good faith or in the interests of justice. Mr Osman also lodged a motion for discovery of certain documents which had passed between Malaysia, Hong Kong and the UK. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Hong Kong Government claimed public interest immunity from disclosure of these documents, none of which were addressed or originated from the Home Office. The hearing on this application was set to begin on 19 June 1990, dealing with the discovery application as a preliminary issue. On 20 June the Divisional Court rejected the application.

SUYAOS/2

***