TNAG-2388-FCO40-3470-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 111

7.

With

Further, the Applicant seeks discovery from the Government of Hong Kong of those documents listed in Schedule I of his application.

the exception of documents numbered 1 and 3, I am not aware of the

existence of any of the particular documents referred to therein.

However, it would appear from the description of the documents referred

to as numbers 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that they are likely to fall within the class described as category C in paragraph 3 of this Certificate.

Accordingly, while the investigation and institution of criminal

proceedings in Hong Kong is a matter for the prosecuting authorities in

the colony, I have formed the view that, since Her Majesty's Government

bears constitutional responsibility for the government of Hong Kong, it is

my duty to assert that it is necessary for the proper administration of

justice that these documents be withheld from production in these

proceedings.

8.

I also object to all evidence being given, whether orally or otherwise, as

to the contents of any of the documents listed in Schedule A.

9.

Further, I am informed and verily believe that the nine documents

referred to in Schedule A and marked with an asterisk (being numbers

48-53 and 62-64 inclusive) are among those that were disclosed on behalf

of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office pursuant to an Order of the

Divisional Court dated 5th October 1989 in the course of the third

application for Habeas Corpus brought by the Applicant before this

Court. No claim in respect of Public Interest Immunity was considered

by the Court in respect of these documents neither was a Certificate

considered by or issued on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth

Office at that time.

10.

11.