TNAG-2655-FCO40-3848-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 50

EDM NUMBER 902: LAW IN HONG KONG

Speaking Note

The motion is misconceived.

Matters relating

to this case are for the courts, as I made clear in my reply

to motion no.901.

Background

(Please see the background note to motion No.901). In his fourth habeas corpus application, in February 1990, Osman applied for discovery of FCO documents relating to the case. We resisted, arguing that nine documents already released to Osman's solicitors in relation to the third habeas corpus application were not relevant and were in any event covered by public interest immunity (PII). A PII certificate, protecting a further 69 documents from discovery, was issued. The Divisional Court refused the application for discovery on the ground of relevance; the question of PII was also considered by the Court and upheld. In his seventh habeas corpus application, Osman again applied for discovery of the documents, arguing that new evidence had come to light to justify this and that the FCO should be made party to the proceedings. Lord Caithness issued a further PII certificate. In its judgment in February 1992, the Court held that it would not make the FCO party to the proceedings purely for the purpose of discovery. It stated that Osman's application was something of a "fishing expedition" and that, in any event, PII had been properly claimed by means of two certificates.

slm111