TNAG-2652-FCO40-3845-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 100

Mr Morris, HKD

cc. Mr Crystal, NewsD

LEADO

29

Reference.

3/3 مل

3841

HKD 384/1

x for judicial review

OSMAN HABEAS CORPUS NO 7

In addition to the elements of the judgment reported in the telegram to Lord Caithness, I should record the following points.

1.

2.

In addition to Osman's Application for Habeas Corpus, the court also had to consider an Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, the aim of which was to quash the committal decision of the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate back in 1987. The FCO was not involved in this application but the essence was that Hong Kong had withheld evidence which would have been of assistance to Osman in the committal proceedings in 1987. Osman's Application for Habeas Corpus was dismissed as was his Application for Judicial Review, although he was granted leave to make the Application so that he would have the opportunity to seek to argue the matter before the House of Lords.

3.

In the course of the Applications, Hong Kong Government permitted the court (though not Osman's representatives) to inspect documents for which they claimed public interest immunity (PII). The FCO permitted the court to inspect "the nine" documents which had been disclosed in 1989 but, as a matter of principle, objected to the court inspecting any further documents. The court found that the documents which it inspected did not assist Osman's Application and took the case no further. The court agreed with the judgments in Habeas Corpus No. 4 that the nine documents did not provide a springboard for further discovery.

4.

The court dealt specifically with the attendance note of 17 January 1985 which Kevin Cahill has appended to various letters. The note recorded a meeting between members of the Noordin Committee and Hong Kong officials. The court commented that even if there was a cover up in Malaysia,

this did not mean that Osman was not guilty of the offences with which he was charged. Osman could be guilty, albeit that criticisms could properly be made of other persons in high places in Malaysia. The documents produced did not provide any evidence of the direct knowledge of the Hong Kong Government of a cover up.

5. The court said that it had not heard argument on the question whether the proceedings were an abuse of process. Having heard the submissions on behalf of Osman, the court was not willing to describe them as an abuse. days to make an application in writing for

Osman was given 7 leave to appeal to

CODE 18 77