TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 60

A

B

C

D

E

F

LL

G

provides standards of protection for the individual which are

conventionally contained in such a bill, in particular with

regard to the conduct of trials with due expedition.

It was submitted in Mr. Osman's affidavit that the Bill

of Rights had altered the situation yet again and the

situation was one now where, having regard to the standards

contained in the Bill of Rights, it would be inappropriate to

return him to Hong Kong.

So far as this ground is concerned, Mr. Osman has two

difficulties. The first was why had he not relied on what

would have then been the proposed Bill of Rights in earlier

applications? It is true that prior to 8th June 1991 he

would not have been able to say that it had then been enacted

but he must have been aware of the proposal to enact such a

Bill of Rights and he could have raised what would be the

position if that Bill of Rights were enacted in his earlier

applications if he wished to do so.

However, more importantly there is a second difficulty.

That is that it is, in my judgment, quite impossible to say

that because the Hong Kong Government has passed an Ordinance

which raises the standards of procedure and fairness with

regard to trials in Hong Kong this is a matter which, as a

result of the passage of time, makes it unjust or oppressive

to return Mr. Osman to Hong Kong. I would suggest that the

contrary is obvious. It becomes, if anything, less unjust or

oppressive to return him if in fact there are higher standards

H

1

19

Page 60Page 61