A
B
C
D
E
F
G
in the evidence to be four-fold.
However the probabilities
are that the Attorney-General of Hong Kong decided that it was
more likely that progress would be achieved by making a fresh
application than seeking to continue to maintain, as he had,
that he was entitled to rely on the original order that had
been made. However I have well in mind the matters relied
upon by the Attorney-General setting out his contentions as to
why he wished to rely on a further letter of request.
The argument of Mr. Osman on the present application is
that the consequence of the fresh letter of request is to
defer the gathering or obtaining of evidence in Malaysia for
an additional period of up to two years. He submits that it
would be wrong for him to be returned to Hong Kong because if
he were returned to Hong Kong his trial would be likely to be
delayed by a further period of delay of that amount.
It is difficult to say, with any degree of certainty,
what, if any, extra delay will occur in consequence of the
making of the letter of request in September of this year
instead of seeking a fresh letter of request at an earlier
date.
However it is by no means certain on the evidence that
there will be anything like an additional two years' delay.
However, even if there were to be that period of two years'
delay, that delay has to be considered against the attitude
which was being adopted by Mr. Osman in the Malay proceedings
with regard to evidence being obtained in Malaysia over the
relevant period.
H
23
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.