Sate:
Time:
Reporter:
4.12.90
11.00 1.00 p.m.
-
MEP/19
Mr Nicholls
2
3
1 is my argument that they must have done, because why do otherwise
than continue to consent to the remands, and indeed of course he drew your attention to a letter of Au Yeung & Co. dated 28th Novemb 1988, by way as I see it of explaining, well look at this letter, it shows that we weren't always happy, and we weren't agreeing with this matter continually going over, if I may put it.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Well
that is a little surprising, that submission, because if you look at the date of this, 28th November, we know that there were subseq remands after that date of 28th November when it was agreed to. There you are, November 1988, it is not until 16th August, 1990 that there was anything by way of a protest, if it could be so described as a protest, by Mr Tan, but in my submission it is quit
Sir I don' important to look at this letter in its true context.
It is dated 28th Novemb know if you have got it in front of you. Sir, one of the major matters in this case, because it is of cour as so often these days, matters of international crime, they cros borders. In this particular case so does the gathering of eviden require the gathering of evidence in more than one country.
A major exercise is the gathering of evidence here in Malaysia, because you have heard about Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhard, which is in fact the parent Bank, and there are a large Of course, there had to be for th number of Malaysian witnesses. purposes of Mr Osman's extradition, the collection of evidence for the purposes of extradition proceedings in the United Kingdo in Malaysia. There came a stage when the Attorney General was concerned with collecting evidence for the purposes of trial, ar indeed that began in September 1988, or indeed an attempt was ma to start it in September 1988 in Malaysia, as affecting both Mr Tan and Mr Osman. Those proceedings didn't get very far bec there was immediately a protest on behalf, or challenge, on beh of Mr Tan and Mr Osman that the learned Judge in the High Court of Malaysia who was to proceed to this examination, had no jurisdiction. That challenge failed, but nevertheless both Mr and Mr Osman were successful in getting a stay, and that is per appeal. That matter has yet to be heard in the Supreme Court
VERBATIM REPORTERS
(
=-6LA
HONG KONG
8731167
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.