A
B
C
D
E
[♥]
F
G
of protection provided in Hong Kong than would previously be provided by the common law, which was equally applicable in
Hong Kong and this country prior to the enactment of the Bill
of Rights Ordinance.
It is not a situation where Mr. Osman is in a position
to say, although he has garnered a considerable quantity of expert evidence, that the effect of the Bill of Rights is that there can be no question of his being tried in Hong Kong. The highest his experts can put it, if their view of the
matter is accepted, is that it is likely that the Courts of
Hong Kong would, because of the provisions of the Bill of
Rights, decide that he should not be subject to trial.
It is clearly preferable that if an argument is to be advanced as to the effect of that Bill of Rights that should
take place not before this court, when this court does not know of all the material matters and has to rely on expert
evidence, but in the courts of Hong Kong who have the task of
applying the Bill of Rights. It is clear, in my judgment, that so far as application No. 6 is based on the Bill of Rights the application is misconceived.
Not surprising, having regard to what I have just said, Mr. Scrivener, in his very clear and helpful arguments on behalf of Mr. Osman, does not pay much attention to the effect of the Bill of Rights. He regarded it as only playing a subsidiary role in the submissions which he made both orally and in writing. The main focus of his submissions was what
H
20
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.