ASSN
A!
BI
C
duly performed on behalf of the Government and resulted in a
substantial number of documents being disclosed, but not the
documents on which the applicant now relies. The sequence of
events are set out in a letter from Senior Crown Counsel, Mr.
Bradley, dated 12th December, 1988. No material has been put
before this court which indicates that Mr. Bradley's account is
inaccurate in any way.
The conclusion that we have come to on this material is
that Mr. Osman has failed to establish that anything happened
which in respect of the committal proceedings placed any special
obligation or duty on the Hong Kong Government or gave Mr. Osman
a legitimate expectation that the Hong Kong Government would go
beyond providing the disclosure which they did.
D
E
F
Lack of good faith.
It is convenient to deal with the two sets of documents
separately, although Mr. Osman relies on the cumulative effect
of the documents and indeed on the other evidence which was
considered on previous applications which were made for habeas
corpus on the same grounds of lack of good faith in the
interests of justice. In expressing our view we take into
account all the evidence put before us, including the evidence
which we have inspected but which was not available to the
applicant's legal advisers.
G
H
The B.B.M.B. documents.
After the collapse of the Carrian Group of Companies,
although there was a call for the Malaysian Government to set up
a Royal Commission, this did not happen and instead, at the
request of the Malaysian Government, B.B.M. B. set up its own
23
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.