A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14 Russell L.J. explains the decision in these terms:
"However, we are not satisfied that where an applicant follows an arguable though erroneous legal path as recommended by his advisers, his late raising of an argument previously open to him should necessarily amount to an abuse of process of the type contemplated by Gibson J." I interpose that was in the Tarling case. In the special circumstances of this case therefore we do not hold that there was any abuse of process." Having considered the merits of the application, Russell L.J. concluded his judgment with these words (page 18):
conci
"If the Secretary of State issues his warrant we cannot conceive of any circumstances where his decision could be successfully attacked by way of judicial review, and there is no reason to suppose that giving this applicant time to consider the Secretary of State's decision could do other than delay the inevitable."
In respect of the decision in relation to habeas corpus number 5 on 11th July of this year, there was a petition to the House of Lords for leave to appeal. That was refused on 25th July of this year. On 26th July this, the sixth application, was made.
I interpose here to point out the obvious, that when those dates are considered against the statutory framework contained in the 1989 Act it can be seen that the effect of those six applications has been that there can have been no question, over the period those applications covered, of the Secretary of State being able to exercise his powers to return the applicant to Hong Kong.
!
In the forefront of Mr. Osman's case on habeas corpus 6, as appears from his affidavit, is the fact that on 8th June 1991, Hong Kong enacted a Bill of Rights Ordinance which
18
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.