TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 202

Kevin Cahill

Tel:

Fax:

071-833 3086

071-837 9024

R&R Mc

bos

for diap

(624)

A$

FAF 3712

56 Tavistock Place

London WC1 9RG.

Sir John Coles,

Miss, Startal

SEAS

We have clearance to job this bridalt ribje man off at departmental level, but this looks particularly

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

London SW1.

nasty,

•

CL.

HKS

Legal Adrian

20

we may

with to give it

4.0.22

20th August 1991.

a fuller reply. Nigel Parker

my

absence! Joth

in considong and will advise (i preference it possible would be to give him yet another, 'no comme

Laying of prima facie evidence of corruption.

Dear Sir John,

My 22/vii

Actually mine Instink

M

I refer to your letters of 18th June and 23rd July 1991.

You have totally misunderstood my letters, for which I apologise.

Based on the jailing of the prosecutor, the criminality of the

principle witness, the loss of evidence, the part played in the request

to prosecute by a man linked to murder and bribery in the courts.

and the view of the Governor of Hong Kong that the request to prosecute

was motivated by interests other than those of justice, I have said

that the prosecution in the Osman case is tainted beyond rescue and

demonstrably corrupt.

I said that Crown servants have a duty in law to report

corruption to either the judicial or police authorities.

I, in my turn carried out my own obligations under the law and

presented you with prima facie evidence (not 'allegations')

that some officials in your department had not carried out

their obligations under the law, and may indeed have actually

assisted in concealing the true nature of the prosecution in this

case.

I have new evidence which says that, at a meeting which took place

on August 15, 1983, Crown officials were asked to restrict the

evidence in a murder trial in Hong Kong and to end the investigation

of a bank there.