that the Hong Kong Government is disclosing the existence of documents to correct details on the schedule to a certificate whose function has already been performed in proceedings which have long been completed.
now.
As far as the UK's own position is concerned, our conclusion is that in May 1990 a bona fide view was reached that these four documents were not discoverable. We see no reason to second guess that view
If the existence of these documents is nevertheless disclosed to Mr Osman's solicitors it will be action taken in response to no legal duty nor any perceptible duty of propriety or fairness. In these circumstances, it would not be right for us to send any similar letter to Eversheds and we would therefore face the difficulty of explaining why we and the Hong Kong Government took a different view of the relevance of the four telegrams.
Finally, it may be the case that, at the end of the day, disclosing the existence of the four telegrams will not damage the efforts to secure Mr Osman's extradition. However, it is no doubt all too well recognised in Hong Kong that such disclosure is bound to be seized upon by Mr Osman's solicitors and supporters as a remarkable opportunity for further publicity, allegations and possibly litigation. These undesirable consequences seem to us all the more regrettable because they would stem from an action which, while laudable in its objective of acting justly and with scrupulous integrity, is in reality unnecessary because it is not an action required by any legal duty or practical considerations of the interests of justice.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.