15933/89
- 10 -
After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on 12 March 1990. It decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure (former version), and to invite the parties to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case insofar as it raised an issue under Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention. The Government submitted their observations, after an extension of the time limit, on 20 June 1990, to which the applicant replied on 10 July 1990. Prior to that he submitted further argument in support of his application on 25 May 1990. Further comment was submitted by the Government on 7 September 1990, to which the applicant replied on 28 September 1990.
On 5 October 1990 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 50 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to obtain the parties' oral submissions on certain of the issues raised by the case. Written briefs were submitted by the parties prior to the hearing, which was held on 14 January 1991. The Government were represented by Mr. M. Wood, Agent, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. M. Baker, QC, and Ms. C. Montgomery, counsel, and Miss P.A. Edwards and Mr. G. Underwood, advisers from the Home Office. The applicant was represented by Mr. J.P. Gardner, Solicitor, Mr. J. Connolly, barrister at law, and Miss S. Huang, adviser.
THE LAW
1.
The principal issue in the present application arises from the applicant's complaint that his prolonged detention in the United Kingdom pending his extradition to Hong Kong is contrary to Article 5 of the Convention and, in particular, Article 5 para. 1 (f), as the extradition and habeas corpus proceedings to which he has been a party, have allegedly not been conducted with the necessary diligence.
The relevant part of Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention provides as follows :
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law :
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person
to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition."
The applicant submitted, inter alia, that the proceedings in the United Kingdom have been tainted with illegality from the outset in view of the invalidity of the original Hong Kong warrant issued on 30 November 1985 and quashed by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal on 4 May 1989. He claimed, thereby, that his ensuing detention in the United Kingdom has been unlawful. The Government contended that the applicant's detention in the United Kingdom was not dependent upon the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.