TNAG-2389-FCO40-3471-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 176

M.J.KINGSTON

Thone: Facsimile:

0625 871382

0625 873225

17-19, Park Lane

Poynton

Cheshire

SK12 1RD.

Tim Devlin MP

House of Commons

London SWIA QAA

Women Mr Dern,

A Corrupt prosecution - LORRAIN OSMAN.

16 April 1991

I know you are aware of the above Hong Kong extradition case from correspondence with the Minister of State at the Home Department.

Mr Osman has now been held ON REMAND for a period of over five and half years You will already be aware that information has been laid before the Minister of State. It is regrettable that he has consistently refused to respond to the serious matters raised, instead relying on a 'slanted" chronology and prejudicial comments regarding Mr Osman, an innocent person.

Evidence has been adduced which shows clearly that the Crown in Hong Kong is pursuing a corrupt prosecution.

I say this because the prosecutor - WARWICK REID, is in jail for corruption.

I say this because the Crown's principle witness admits taking bribes on an unimaginable scale, admits lying in continuous breach of his immunities and has been dismissed as a liar in open court. He has now been dismissed from his position of employment with the complainant.

I say this because the previous Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, was warned by the then Governor of Hong Kong, that the complainant (The Attorney General of Malaysia) had "matters other than those of justice on his mind".

I say this because Foreign Office cables show that Reid knowingly took selective evidence from the complainant.

I further say that the complainant's recent admission to a total loss of about 65% of the remaining evidence, including board minutes of the biggest bank in the country, is wholly in line, with the earlier bias revealed in "confidential" cables. More than that I say that the Crown had further evidence, in its own files, that a principle official in the complainant government was, prima facie, linked to murder in the territory, and to a potential bribe of US$50m.

This evidence was in the possession of the Crown at all material times, and prior to the decision to accede to the manifestly corrupt complaint.

I say that the Crown having granted immunity to it's chief witness in order to obtain the facts, has, in furtherance of the corrupt purpose for which the prosecution was

brought, failed to revoke the said immunity, despite the clear breaching of the terms of the immunity.