TNAG-2389-FCO40-3471-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 16

there

(1) That

should be a joint trial in the public

interest. The evidence should not be presented piecemeal and it

was undesirable to allow a situation where one conspirator could,

due to the absence of another, place blame on the other. It would

also avoid numerous lengthy trials which would extend the length

of proceedings and increase the cost and a separate trial of Tan

would, by its publicity, severely prejudice the subsequent trials

of myself and Saniman.

(2) That

interrupted

the West LB case, now in progress, should not

and should be allowed to run its normal course.

be

28. In addition, Leading Counsel for the Hong

further submitted that :-

Kong

government

"There can be no serious suggestion that both criminal proceedings against this accused can run in tandem. You cannot have the evidence gathering exercise in Malaysia at the same time

as

the trial of West LB/Barclays. ( emphasis added) I interpose that there the evidence gathering exercise in Malaysia is like a trial in itself because what has to take place is, there has to be the taking of depositions in Malaysia, and those depositions include cross-examination on behalf of the accused. He has to give instructions to his Counsel of those matters. Nor indeed

in our submission, can one possibly have for example, an appeal in relation to West LB/Barclays during the trial of BMFL. It must be in the public interest also to avoid any such clash or risk of clash." ("LEO 1", pages 25-26).

29. On 10th June 1991, the Hong Kong Government applied for a

further six-month ajournment of the BMFL trial. In the course of

this argument, Leading Counsel for the Hong Kong government made

aforesaid admission that the Crown still had not as at that

date collected all the prosecution evidence for the BMFL trial.

the

14