TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 70

A

B!

ci

D

ΕΙ

F

G

indeed an abuse of process of the court. It is using the

machinery of the court for purposes for which it should not be

used.

It is a situation where, technically, Mr. Osman can

properly identify, in the case of each application, some piece

of evidence which he can allege is fresh evidence and that he

can perhaps allege also amounts to a fresh ground. But

before evidence can be regarded as fresh evidence or before it

can be said that there are fresh grounds, in my judgment,

there must be some prospect of the fresh evidence or the fresh

grounds which are relied upon having some prospect of

producing a different result than has hitherto been produced

by the previous applications.

application was made, relying on the sort of matters to which

I have made reference, in my judgment there was no prospect

whatsoever of the court taking a different view from the view

taken hitherto.

Certainly by the time this

Therefore it seems to me that not only should this

application be dismissed on the merits, the merits which I

have sought to set out in the course of this judgment, but

that also this application should be regarded as one which the

court would strike out as being an abuse of the process of the

court.

That leaves it for me to consider the cross-application

which seeks to suggest that both this application and future

applications should be the subject of a two-stage procedure.

H

29