TNAG-2389-FCO40-3471-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 21

documents, which remained untraced at that time, had

necessarily

been lost. The latter issue was put to rest by a letter from BBMB

dated 5 February 1991 ("LEO 1", page 48) and this matter was

canvassed in another judgement of the Divisional

subsequent application made by me on 28th March 1991.

Court on a

43. I am advised and verily believe that since the coming into

force of the Bill, the issue of whether it will be fair or just

to require me to face a trial in Hong Kong is to be determined by

the standards of fairness set out in the Bill itself and not by a

determination as to whether documents which have been lost might

be relevant. I am advised and verily believe that since the Crown

to select documents it considered

has had the

opportunity

relevant and I have been denied the opportunity to inspect the

same documents and to select those that are relevant to my

there has been no "equality of arms" between the Crown

defence,

and me

any

I am advised and verily believe that, as a result,

trial in Hong Kong will amount to a breach of the "fair hearing"

provision in Article 10 of the Bill and it will therefore

unjust or oppressive to return me to Hong Kong for that purpose.

be

44. I am

further advised and verily believe that a lack of

equality

would

also exist where the personal presence of the

defendant is required for giving on-the-spot

instructions

to

Counsel, and such presence is denied.

45.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, I will not be

given

19