14037/88
- 2 -
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr. Lorrain Esme Osman, is a Malaysian citizen born in 1931. He is a banker by profession and is at present detained at HM Prison Pentonville, London, England. He is represented, in the proceedings before the Commission, by Mr. R. Johnson, a solicitor in the firm of Johnson and Walsh, Birmingham.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows:
The applicant was committed to custody on 1 June 1987 by Bow Street Magistrates' Court to await his extradition to Hong Kong under the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. His extradition had been sought by the Hong Kong authorities on a number of charges of fraud and conspiracy to defraud shareholders of the bank of Malaysia.
The applicant applied for habeas corpus challenging the order of the Magistrate on grounds, inter alia, of insufficiency of evidence, want of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements. His application was refused by the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench on 30 March 1988 and leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused on 14 July 1988.
The applicant applied again for habeas corpus based on two further grounds, firstly claiming diplomatic immunity as a diplomatic agent of the Republic of Liberia and secondly, submitting that the proceedings in Hong Kong and Malaysia, antecedent to the committal order, constituted an abuse of process. In its judgment of
29 December 1988 the Divisional Court found that the applicant did not qualify for diplomatic immunity and that the court had no competence to investigate alleged irregularities in proceedings overseas. The application for habeas corpus was accordingly dismissed.
The applicant states that if he were returned to Hong Kong and convicted of these offences, he would be likely to receive a very lengthy sentence of imprisonment. One of the applicant's associates, whose alleged involvement in these offences was of a lesser degree than that alleged against the applicant, pleaded guilty to four charges arising out of the same matter and was recently sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had increased a four-year sentence given by the trial judge.
The applicant maintains that were he to receive a similar sentence he would not have completed it by 1997. By a Joint Declaration of the Governments of the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China on the question of Hong Kong made in 1984, it has been declared that China will resume sovereignty over Hong Kong as from 1 July 1997 (Articles 1 and 2).
Although the Joint Declaration purports to guarantee various rights and freedoms which, it declares, will continue to be enjoyed by people in Hong Kong after 1997, the applicant is fearful that after China has resumed sovereignty he will be subjected to further prosecution and/or punishment under the Chinese Criminal Code.
The Joint Declaration provides in Article 3 (3) that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (S.A.R.) will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power and that the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.