19319/92
THE FACTS
2
The applicant was born in 1931 in Penang, Malaysia, but he claims to be the holder of
of a Liberian diplomatic passport. He is a businessman by profession. He is currently detained in the United Kingdom awaiting his extradition to Hong Kong. In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr. J. P. Gardner, Solicitor, and Mr. R. Johnson, Solicitor with Messrs. Blakemore, Birmingham.
This is the applicant's third application to the Commission. His first, No. 14037/88, in which he complained that his extradition to Hong Kong would be in breach of Articles 3 and 7 of the Convention, was rejected by the Commission on 13 March 1989 as being manifestly ill-founded. In his second application, No. 15933/89, he complained of his protracted detention (over 5 years) pending extradition and the refusal of bail, as well as the length of the extradition proceedings and the four habeas corpus applications he made. He alleged that he would receive an unfair trial if returned to Hong Kong. He invoked Article 5 paras. 1 (f), 2, 3 and 4, Article 6 para. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention. On 14 January 1991 the Commission declared that application inadmissible as being manifestly
being manifestly ill-founded
ill-founded in the exceptional circumstances of the case.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:
On 30 November 1985 a warrant was issued by a Hong Kong Magistrate for the applicant's arrest on 16 charges of fraud. The applicant was arrested in London on 6 December 1985, pursuant to a provisional warrant issued by a London Magistrate on 2 December 1985 under section 6 (1) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. A further Hong Kong warrant was issued on 20 January 1986 increasing the charges to On 21 January 1986 the applicant's extradition was requested by the Governor of Hong Kong and on 24 January the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom issued an authority to proceed. Extradition proceedings against the applicant were heard at Bow Street Magistrates Court and resulted in an order of committal against the applicant being made on 1 June 1987 to await the order of the Secretary of State effecting his surrender to the authorities of Hong Kong. The Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 provides for the lawfulness of such committal orders to be challenged by way of habeas corpus proceedings. The applicant issued proceedings for habeas corpus on 10 June 1987, 8 June 1988, 6 June 1989, 2 February 1990, 27 February 1991 and on or about 30 July 1992. The present application concerns the issues which were raised in the fifth of these.
The fifth habeas corpus application came before a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division on 12 and 13 May 1991. The applicant contended in those proceedings that the arrangements with regard to specialty which had been made between the Hong Kong authorities and the United Kingdom were inadequate as a matter of English law. On 26 April 1991 the Hong Kong authorities had issued an undertaking to respect the specialty principle under the relevant United Kingdom legislation, section 6 (4) of the Extradition Act 1989, and not to prosecute the applicant for an offence other than
iPage 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.