TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 57

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

That was said in November 1989. The decision of this

court in respect of habeas corpus number 3 was followed by an

application, first of all, to this court for leave to appeal

and then an application to the House of Lords for leave to

appeal.

On 1st February 1990 the House of Lords refused the

petition for leave in respect of habeas corpus number 2 and

habeas corpus number 3. The following day, on 2nd February

1990, application number 4 was made. This again was made on

a number of grounds. One was based on the passage of time

which it was alleged made it unjust and oppressive for the

applicant to be returned. Another ground referred to the

disadvantage that the applicant was put in relation to the

Malay proceedings and, further, it was said that the gathering

of evidence in the Malay proceedings was causing delay.

In the course of this application (that is habeas corpus

number 4) applications were made for discovery. The

applications were refused.

There was a petition made by Mr.

Osman for leave to appeal to the House of Lords in respect of

that decision which was in due course refused.

On 12th December 1990 the fourth application was

dismissed.

The court on this occasion was presided over by

Mann L.J. At the end of his judgment, at page 35 of the

transcript which is before us, Mann L.J. said:

"The principle in Tarling satisfies us that this application is an abuse of process and contravention of statute. For that reason, in addition to the others which we have given, we would dismiss this application."

16