TNAG-2389-FCO40-3471-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 12

insurmountable

difficulties in collecting overseas evidence as

it would be impossible for me or any other defendant

to cross-

examine any witnesses in an informed manner or at all. In this

connection, it was admitted by Leading Counsel for the Hong Kong

government during the remand hearing before Magistrate

in Hong Kong on 4th December 1990 that:-

Sinclair

"

one

where

of the things that the parties want to know, there is evidence gathering in another country, is precisely what charges they are going to be charged with, because of course there has to be the taking of evidence upon depositions, and cross-examination must in fact be directed to the charges, because the difficulty in a case like this is determining precisely what the charges are going to be in a joint trial

of the defendants hasn't yet been returned-- two

one

of

("LEO 1", pages 4-6).

when them"

have

could at all material times

(2) The Hong Kong government

applied for new Letters of Request in place of the

1985 Letter of Request, but has not done so. The fact that the

Hong Kong government has, by refusing to inform me of the charges

it

any

intends to proceed with, disabled itself from collecting

evidence in Malaysia upon any Letter of Request is amply

demonstrated by the fact that it has failed even to act upon the

1988 Letter of Request notwithstanding that it was obtained more

than two years ago and that it related to the collection of oral

testimony from two important Malaysian witnesses, namely, Ariffin

and Nawawi.

(3) In any event, I am advised and verily believe that

reliance upon the 1985 Letter of Request is

continued

its

misplaced

10