TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 143

-7-

documents used by the HK

be allowed to inspect were the

Government in the extradition

department, that the only documents he will

of originals

proceedings (i.e. documents listed in "CHA 2" and "CHA 3") and not those documents "made available" to them as had been stated in BBMB's letters. This

did not take my position much further since these documents had already been produced. In respect of censored documents, from which only extracts had been produced, Mr. Cohen was only allowed to inspect the original of the extracts.

to was suggested Mr Cohen that if he wished to inspect the "CHA documents, it would be necessary to obtain a Court order, which order (Mr Cohen was assured), would be complied with by BBMB. He was also assured by

Na'imah bte Khalid that the "CHA 1" documents would be available for

inspection in the event that the Order was obtained: there was no suggestion

that any of the documents were missing.

It

1"

20.

I instructed Mr Krishnan to apply for an order requiring BBMB to

produce for my inspection the documents listed "CHA 1" and this was granted

by Mr Justice Dato' H J Mohamed Eusoff bin Chin on 20th September 1990 (pages

1-4, "AK 2"). The Court ordered the inspection to commence on 8th October

1990 at 9.30 am.

21.

On 5th October 1990, the last working day before the inspection was

due to start,

BBMB's solicitors served an application to set aside the 20th

September Order. Notwithstanding the fact that my solicitorS had used

precisely the same procedure as the HK Government has used in applying for the 1986 Order, with which BBMB had complied, BBMB now challenged the Court's

jurisdiction to grant my order. BBMB further alleged that I was unable to prove that the documents listed in "CHA 1" were relevant to the proceedings.

This was an extraordinary position. Effectively, BBMB's position was that

those documents were "relevant" to the proceedings for the HK Government's

inspection in 1986 were no longer "relevant" to the proceedings for my

inspection in 1990.

22.

Following a hearing which lasted 1 and 1/2 days the Court on 9th October 1990 dismissed BBMB's application to set aside its earlier order and granted

an extension until 15th October 1990 to enable BBMB to prepare the documents

(pages 16-22 "AK 2").

7