RESTRICTED
HKD 384/1
笋
Mr Berman
Legal Adviser
From: Mr Parker
4 Raymond BLDS.
Theobalds Rd.
Grays Inn.
49
Assistant Legal Adviser
K 275 270 3067
Date: 13 February 1992
UB.
CC: Mc Morris, HKD
Mr Yaghmourian, SEAD
LORRAIN OSMAN:
1.
HABEAS CORPUS NO 7
The purpose of this minute is to inform you that Mr Osman has brought a seventh application for a writ of habeas corpus and to seek your advice on what action we should take. I attach a copy of his affirmation, but not the bundles of exhibits. The application will be heard on 24-25 February. This matter 1 S quite distinct from the problem of the booklet published by Kevin Cahill.
2. Osman's application is made on the grounds that it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust if he were to be returned to Hong Kong, in particular, because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice. These are the same grounds put forward in Osman's fourth habeas corpus application, the alleged justification for the fresh proceedings being new documents recently disclosed in Hong Kong. The documents in question were disclosed by Bank Bumiputra and the other plaintiffs in civil proceedings instituted in Hong Kong against Osman in 1986. A large number of documents were disclosed in the week of 6 January 1992 and a number of these documents are relied upon by Osman to support his case. The documents relied upon are essentially a series of attendance notes of meetings and discussions between the Noordin Committee in Malaysia (which investigated the Bank Bumiputra scandal) and various Hong Kong government officials. Osman's argument is that the decision to prosecute him in Hong Kong was a political one and that the Hong Kong authorities had knowledge of, and were parties to the circumstances in which the accusations were made and that the charges against him were not made in good faith.
3. Mr Osman goes on to argue that in the light of the evidence available from the new documents, the Court should re-examine his application for discovery which was made in the fourth habeas corpus proceedings and refused on 20 June 1990. The history of those proceedings is that in the course of the third application for habeas corpus, the FCO disclosed a number of documents to
RESTRICTED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.