TNAG-2654-FCO40-3847-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 160

ASSN

A

B

C

D

E

Lim

F

G

H

suppression of the statements made by Mr. Mak was to avoid

prejudicing the trial of George Than. We have no reason to

question this explanation. In fact the references made by Mr.

Mak about the Minister were given in evidence at his trial.

The Jalil documents do not assist the applicant to

establish his allegations of impropriety on behalf of the Hong

Kong Government.

We

Having examined all the material in this case, the

conclusion to which we have come is that Mr. Osman is not

entitled to the relief which he seeks. The allegations which he

makes are not borne out by the evidence on which he seeks to

rely. The Hong Kong Government made cross-applications to have

Mr. Osman's application dismissed as an abuse of the court.

did not hear argument in support of those applications. Such

an application is, in any event, inappropriate in respect of an

application for leave to apply for judicial review. If the

court regarded the application as being an abuse, it would not

grant leave. At the preliminary hearing for directions on the

first application on 31st January 1992, Mr. Thomas assured the

court that he had personally given very careful consideration to

the propriety of making that application and he had decided the

application should be made. Having heard both applications

now, and bearing in mind what happened in relation to discovery,

we feel it right to indicate that, although we regard both

applications as now having been shown to be of no merit, we do

not criticise those on Mr. Osman's behalf who made the

applications which have now been considered by the court.

With regard to the application for judicial review, we

dismiss it, having granted leave for it to be made. We grant

leave because if we did not do this it would inhibit Mr. Osman's

28