TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 56

A

B

C

D

E

[U]

F

G

H

number 2. Some of the delay in the determination of those

proceedings was the result of applications for adjournment.

This decision was again followed by, first of all, an

application for leave to appeal to this court on 19th January

1989 and, subsequently, an application for leave to appeal to

the House of Lords which was made on 24th February 1989.

Applications were made to adjourn the House of Lords'

application for leave to appeal.

Before the determination by

the House of Lords of the application for leave to appeal in

respect of habeas corpus 2, on 6th June 1989 habeas corpus 3

was launched coupled with an application for judicial review.

This application was largely based on alleged defects in the

procedure prior to the committal. It was refused by this

court on 17th November 1989. At that time this court was

presided over by Parker L.J. who gave the first judgment of

the court.

I do not propose to do more than refer to a short

passage of that judgment which is reported in [1990] 1 WLR at

page 878. In the final paragraph of his judgment Parker L.J.

said this:

".....it will no doubt be the case that, if the applicant succeeds in his present proceedings in Malaysia, he will seek to make a further application to this court on the basis that all the evidence collected in Malaysia was unlawfully so collected and therefore was inadmissible my the committal proceedings. If this were to happen, it appears to me that the point which is a short point of law should be brought before the court with the utmost speed. It is more than time that these long drawn out proceedings should reach finality and that the applicant should either be released or returned to Hong Kong without further delay."

15