TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 132

CONFIDENTIAL

any substantive comment. I further recommend that the MPs involved

should be informed of our response, and advised to respond in

similar terms or to refrain from responding. The letter to

Sir J Coles deals with matters not specifically connected with the

FCO, and Mr Cahill has sent identical letters to Home Office

officials; I therefore recommend that this letter be referred to

the Home Office for reply.

3 I submit: a draft of the reply to be sent by this department to

and Mr. Ondlow; Mr Cahill; draft

draft letter from Lord Caithness to Mr Renton; draft Private Secretary letters to Sir G Howe, PS/Lord Belstead,

PS/No 10 (covering a draft PS/No 10 letter to Mrs Thatcher's Private

Office), Sir P Cradock and Sir A Acland. SEAD will inform the other

officials involved of our action when it has been cleared.

A

B

C

4

HKD, Legal Advisers and Home Office concur.

Background

5 Lorrain Osman, a Malaysian businessman, has been detained in the

UK since December 1985 pending extradition to Hong Kong to face.

charges of fraud. Osman, a trained lawyer, has delayed extradition by his extensive use of the appeals procedure.

Five

applications for a writ of habeas corpus have been refused, and a

sixth is pending; Osman has also made two unsuccessful applications

to the European Commission of Human Rights. A background note by

the Home Office, which summarises the full history, is attached.

6 We first became aware of Mr Cahill's interest in the case when he

wrote to Sir Arthur Watts on 30 March, alleging corruption in the

FCO and making it clear that he was in possession of a confidential

telegram on the case (Hong Kong telno 2874 of 20 December 1985), which he claimed substantiated his allegation. Sir J Coles

replied on 30 April, refuting Cahill's allegation of corruption and pointing out that the telegram was considered by the Divisional

Court in the course of Osman's fourth habeas corpus application. Sir J Coles also stated that the document was privileged, and had been released to the court under a Public Interest Immunity Certificate; if Mr Cahill made any improper use of the telegram, the

CONFIDENTIAL