committal order was made, if Mr. Osman wished to rely on there
being lawful authority or reasonable excuse for what he did, then
the onus of establishing lawful authority or reasonable excuse
would lie upon him. However, in consequence of the Hong Kong
Bill of Rights Ordinance coming into force, there have now been
decisions in Hong Kong indicating that the burden of proof is no
longer laid on the defendant when charged with an offence of this
nature but rests on the prosecution in the ordinary way.
Mr.
Osman points out that the Particulars of Facts relied upon by the
Hong Kong Government in support of their application for his
extradition in respect of the relevant offences do not allege
that what he did was without lawful authority or reasonable
excuse. He contends that the offences for which his extradition
is sought must remain extraditable offences both at the time of
the committal and at the time that the Home Secretary orders his
return and he contends that as the Particulars of Facts are now
deficient, the Home Secretary was not entitled to order his
return in respect of the corruption offences and this taints the
entire order. I do not accept this contention. The Hong Kong
26
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.