A
B
Ci
D
E
F
G
other hand, it was a situation where, as a result of the
passage of time (not brought about by the applicant) where
injustice or oppression resulted then irrespective of whether
the requesting state was or was not blameworthy the applicant
would be entitled to be discharged. Lord Diplock was not
suggesting that in a case which was close to the borderline as
to whether or not the applicant was entitled to be discharged,
the fact that the requesting state had been guilty of culpable
delay was not a matter which the court was entitled to take
into consideration. That is of significance here because it
is contended on behalf of Mr. Osman that the Government of
Hong Kong has not only been responsible for delay, it has been
culpable in causing that delay.
The facts. Turning to the facts of the present
application it is important, in my judgment, to look at the
history of the successive applications for habeas corpus which
have been made by Mr. Osman. The history as a whole is
relevant for two purposes: First of all, because it throws
light on the extent to which the present application raises
matters which can be described as new grounds or involving
fresh evidence; and, secondly, it is relevant because this is
one of those situations where, in my judgment, the pattern of
previous proceedings gives a clear indication as to the nature
of the present application.
You can have situations where the application which is
before the court at any particular time can be justified upon
H
11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.