TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 96

A

B

C

D

E

1

on 4 May, 1989 has been and is, devoid of consequence here

and, so far as we are aware, anywhere.

During the course of the proceedings in HC 3 there

on 21 October, 1989, produced at the request of the

court nine documents. Those documents were the inspiration

for the present application in so far as it related to the

motive of the Government, and also inspired the motion for

discovery herein of further documents which was dismissed

on 20 June, 1990 by Leggatt LJ and Nolan J. On 14 November

this court acceded to a motion by the Foreign and

Commonwealth Office that the nine documents were subject to

public interest immunity and were in any event to be

treated as irrelevant. Reasons were given for our decision

("The Times", 28 November, 1990). As was explained in

those reasons we had in the peculiar circumstances, read

the nine documents, and it is right for completeness in

this judgment to record our agreement expressed on that

occasion with Leggatt LJ (with whom Nolan J agreed) when he

said that:

سنا

F

G

H

#

there is nothing [in the nine documents] to show or suggest that the Hong Kong Government had any other motive in proceeding against the applicant than his prosecution for crimes alleged to have been committed by him for which the courts of Hong Kong admittedly have jurisdiction to try him. (Transcript p 20D).

H

Mr. Thomas pursued his application for a writ by

reference first to statute and second to the inherent

jurisdiction of a court to prevent an abuse of process.

The relevant statutory provision was section 8 of the FOA.

10