TNAG-2390-FCO40-3472-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 73

B:

C

D

E

F

G

H

therefore no difficulty in the Hong Kong Government being able to be present on any further application within the sort of

timescale to which I have referred.

In fixing that timescale I have well in mind the problems that the Hong Kong Government might have in obtaining

evidence in answer to that relied upon by Mr. Osman.

However

I would suggest that at least at the first hearing the matter

should come before this court in the sort of timescale that I

have mentioned and the question of collection of evidence should be deferred until the result of the application is

known.

MR. JUSTICE PILL: I agree.

MR. GRANT (for Mr. Nicholls): My Lords, it follows that on behalf

of the respondents I apply for an order for costs and,

that such costs be ordered to be taxed on an indemnity basis pursuant to Order 62 rule 3. I rely on the matters your Lordship referred to in your judgment.

further,

MR. MOK (for Mr. Scrivener):

Obviously I do not oppose any order as to costs. As to the basis of the order, I do say that there is no reason why although the application was made strictly within the rules and although it was held for the first time, it appears, by your Lordships to be an abuse of process on the basis of the past pattern of proceedings, this is no doubt a new matter which is known to the jurisprudence in the field of habeas corpus. On that basis I do say that costs should be taxed on a party/party basis in the usual way instead of an indemnity basis.

LORD JUSTICE WOOLF:

advanced by Mr. costs.

(Their Lordships conferred)

Mr. Grant, not necessarily for the reasons Mok, we do not make an indemnity order for

MR. GRANT: As your Lordships please.

LORD JUSTICE WOOLF: It only remains for me to say how grateful I

am to counsel for the submissions that have been advanced.

32