15933/89
4 -
The applicant contested most matters at the hearing and counsel informed the Chief Magistrate that the applicant was not concerned with the time the proceedings were taking as his instructions were to oblige the Hong Kong Government strictly to prove its case and to make no admissions of any kind. As a result the applicant did not permit the statements to be taken "as read". The Magistrate offered to sit six days a week, but that was rejected by the applicant's counsel.
On 1 June 1987 the Chief Magistrate found ample prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in 42 of the 43 fraud and corruption offences and, pursuant to section 7 (5) of the 1967 Act, committed the applicant to prison to await the order of the Secretary of State to extradite him to Hong Kong.
2.
Habeas corpus proceedings
a) Habeas corpus 1
On 10 June 1987 the applicant applied to the Divisional Court for an order of habeas corpus and also for leave to seek judicial review to quash the authority issued by the Secretary of State to deliver the applicant to the Hong Kong authorities. (Such applications have a suspensive effect on extradition, pursuant to section 8 of the 1967 Act.) It was alleged, inter alia, that the Chief Magistrate was wrong in law in committing the applicant on the basis of the offences with which he was charged. The parties to the proceedings were the applicant, the Government of Hong Kong and the Governor of Pentonville Prison where the applicant was detained. The parties' representatives liaised on the question of a hearing date. The respondents sought a hearing in November 1987, but the applicant requested January 1988. He subsequently asked for its deferral until 22 February 1988.
After interim procedural hearings on 11 November 1987 and
21 January 1988, a hearing of this action took place between
22 February 1988 and 19 March 1988. The application was rejected by the Divisional Court on 30 March 1988 in a lengthy judgment. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was rejected by the Divisional Court on 29 April 1988. On 13 May 1988 the applicant sought leave from the House of Lords which refused it on 14 July 1988.
b) Habeas corpus 2
In the meantime, on 8 June 1988, the applicant introduced a second application for habeas corpus to the Divisional Court based on a claim that he was a Liberian diplomat and hence immune from prosecution. On 13 July 1987 the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom had received a claim for diplomatic immunity from prosecution for criminal offences. or extradition on the basis that the applicant had held Liberian diplomatic status since 1985. The applicant had not made this claim of immunity earlier on arrest, in the committal proceedings or in the first habeas corpus proceedings. The Foreign Office refused to accept retrospective notification of the diplomatic appointment or to acknowledge the applicant's entitlement to diplomatic privileges and immunities. At one point in October 1988 the Liberian Embassy said that the applicant's immunity had been waived "to allow the law to take its course".
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.