TNAG-2389-FCO40-3471-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 24

of the

and the

because

which are the subject matter of the charges against me

trial, which would prejudice my ability to defend myself

recollections of witnesses and my own recollections

particularly in the absence of full disclosure of documents

BBMB, the complainant in this case;

by

(3) the loss by BBMB during the "passage of time" of 3480

document (or 64%) of a universe of documents which had been

selected by BBMB as documents "relevant" to the proceedings,

which had been inspected by a representative of the Crown, but

which were no longer available for my inspection;

and

and

(4) the massive publicity about both the Carrian collapse

my case, thereby rendering impossible a fair and impartial

trial in Hong Kong.

application is

51. I am advised that the basis of my current

distinct both factually and legally, and could not have been

raised in my previous application for the following reasons.

Prior to

was

my

to

52. The Bill only came into force on 8th June 1991.

this date, the only relevant standard of fairness or justice

that under the common law, which contained different and, in

submission, lesser safeguards for persons subject

proceedings. This Court therefore could not at any

earlier time be asked to, nor did it in fact, give affect to

the standard now prevailing in Hong Kong under the Bill.

respectful

criminal

22