TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 66

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

on here.

When the background to the Malay proceedings are looked

at it is apparent to me that if the third letter of request

had been made, as Mr. Scrivener submitted it could have been

made and should have been made two or three years earlier, it

would have been subject to the same delaying tactics as the

earlier proceedings were subjected to and the fact of the

matter is that there will be no greater delay than existed

already as a result of the September 1991 letter of request.

Subsidiary to the question of the Malaysia evidence

there is reliance by Mr. Osman on other matters. First of

all, it is suggested that delay would be caused by the

extradition from France of Dr. Saniman. In so far as that is

concerned it again is a matter which could have been raised

earlier. It is true that the position may be slightly

clearer now than it once was as to when there is likely to be

a final outcome of those proceedings, but certainly at the

time of habeas corpus number 5 it would have been possible to

put as good or nearly as good an estimate of the outcome of

those proceedings before the court as it is possible to do

now.

However there is another answer to this complaint by Mr.

Osman. The second respondent has made it clear in his

evidence what while it would like Dr. Saniman to be tried with

Mr. Osman, if that is not practical in consequences of the

extradition proceedings in France being delayed, then the

H

25