Mr Osman has made three applications for bail. The first was refused on 26 June 1986. the second on 26 July 1989 and the th on 4 October 1989. Mr Osman has also made two applications to te European Commission of Human Rights. The first was declared inadmissible on 13 March 1989, the second on 14 January 1991.
I attach a chronology of events showing the numerous stages that the case has been through. You will see that the matter remains unresolved because of Mr Osman's continuing litigation, and that the case has been the subject of continuous and detailed scrutiny in the courts in this country, in Malaysia and in Hong Kong.
In the first habeas corpus application the Divisional Court decided that there was ample evidence against Mr Osman and upheld the right of the Hong Kong courts to try him. In the second application the court rejected Mr Osman's claim that he was immune from prosecution on the grounds that he was a Liberian diplomat. In the third application the court decided that the quashing by the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong on 4 May 1989 of the original arrest warrant issued on 30 November 1985, which Mr Osman argued invalidated the extradition proceedings, was irrelevant. Moreover, subsequent warrants of arrest containing the charges on which the Hong Kong authorities proceeded were issued on 20 January and 25 April 1986. Petitions to the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the judgements in all three applications were refused.
In the most recent application Mr Osman applied, as a preliminary issue, for discovery of numerous documents held by the Hong Kong Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. On 20 June and again on 14 November 1990 the Divisional Court rejected Mr Osman's applications for disclosure of the documents on the grounds that they were irrelevant. The Court also ordered references to nine documents already disclosed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be struck out on the same grounds.
The substantive argument put forward by Mr Osman in the fourth habeas corpus application was that the accusations against him were not made in good faith or in the interests of justice. The application was refused on 12 December. In so doing, the court declared that the application was an abuse of process and a contravention of statute. They also decided that the lapse of time while Mr Osman has resisted his extradition could not be attributed to the Hong Kong Government. Various arguments put forward by Mr Osman about lost documents, corrupt officials, the unavailability or otherwise of witnesses from Malaysia and the motives of the Malaysian and Hong Kong Governments were rejected by the Court. Mr Osman has 14 days to apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The court reconvened on 11 January 1991 when they refused an application by Mr Osman for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. He has, however, petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords direct.
/Any question
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.