TNAG-2654-FCO40-3847-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 143

ASSN

A

B

C

D

[1]

E

F

G

H

!

it had about the Hong Kong documents.

Mr. Thomas however

pursued an application to see additional documents in the

possession of the Foreign and Commonwealth office. As a matter

of principle, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were not

prepared to concede that the court was entitled to inspect the

additional documents. For this purpose two certificates, by

the appropriate Minister, were relied on. The first of those

certificates had already been relied on for the purposes of a

previous application for discovery by Mr. Osman. The second

certificate confirmed that the contents of the first certificate

continued to apply. These certificates made similar claims to

public interest immunity as were made in the certificate on

which the Hong Kong Government would, if necessary, have relied.

There was a procedural problem with regard to the

application for discovery against the Foreign and Commonwealth

Office. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs was not a party to the proceedings. As a preliminary

to his application for discovery, Mr. Osman therefore sought an

order that the Secretary of State be added as a respondent.

This application to join the Secretary of State was

misconceived.

Assuming that it can in exceptional

circumstances be appropriate to join a party to proceedings of

this nature purely for the purposes of discovery, this is not a

case in which the court would accede to the application. As

Miss Montgomery contended, the appropriate course would have

been to have issued a summons requiring the

summons requiring the appropriate official

to attend at court so as to produce the documents.

However in

order to enable the court to deal with the matter of principle,

Miss Montgomery was content not to rely upon the procedural

defect. Accordingly the court heard argument and, without

11