TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 57

5 -

15933/89

The parties to the proceedings were the applicant, the Governor of Pentonville Prison, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Liberian Government and the Hong Kong Government. A hearing was set down for 17 October 1988 but the applicant refused to serve any documentation relating to this application upon the Hong Kong Government. On legal advice, he considered that the issue of his diplomatic immunity was between the Liberian and United Kingdom authorities and a question to which the Hong Kong authorities should not be a party. The Hong Kong Government then had to apply to the Divisional Court on 13 October 1988, as a consequence of which they were served with the documents. On 17 and 21 October 1988 the applicant applied for and obtained adjournments of the proceedings in order to investigate apparent irregularities in the issue of the original arrest warrant of 30 November 1985 in Hong Kong. The Court expressed its concern about these proceedings dragging on, and urged the applicant's counsel to deal with every possible remaining argument against the applicant's extradition at the next hearing to be fixed for the second half of November 1988.

The Government of Liberia, having waived their claim on behalf of the applicant in respect of diplomatic immunity in October 1988, sent a diplomatic note to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which purported to renew the claim for diplomatic immunity. The note protested the applicant's continued detention and explained that the previous waiver had only been for the purposes of the proceedings before the Divisional Court in habeas corpus 2. Proceedings in Hong Kong were successful, with the original arrest warrant being quashed on 4 May 1989 by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal.

The hearing of the second habeas corpus application took place before the Divisional Court between 28 November 1988 and 1 December 1988. The application was rejected by decision of 21 December 1988. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused by the Divisional Court on 19 January 1989. An application for leave to appeal was lodged with the House of Lords on 24 February 1989. This application was subsequently adjourned at the applicant's request on 9 May 1989 and ultimately refused on 1 February 1990.

c) Habeas corpus 3

+

On 6 June 1989 the applicant lodged a third application for a writ of habeas corpus with the Divisional Court on the grounds that the quashed warrant of arrest in Hong Kong had invalidated the extradition proceedings. The hearing commenced on 4 October 1989, the parties being the applicant, the Governor of Pentonville Prison, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and the Hong Kong Government. A further claim for diplomatic immunity was withdrawn. As a result of information acquired in September 1989, the applicant made new challenges to the lawfulness of the extradition proceedings and sought an adjournment pending an independent inquiry into the conduct of all those involved. He also requested an adjournment pending the outcome of proceedings he had initiated in Malaysia. The Court adjourned the matter from 5 to 19 October 1989 to enable the parties to file further affidavits. The hearing ended on 26 October 1989. The Divisional Court, refusing this application by