HL Deb 14 February 1990 vol 515 cc1456-8WA
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the explanation for Mr. Lorrain Osman being held on remand in HM Prison Pentonville for over five years.

Viscount Ullswater

Mr. Osman has been detained in custody for just over four years. He is the subject of an extradition request from Hong Kong and has been committed for return there. The delay in his return reflects both the complexity of the case and the series of appeals which Mr. Osman has made against his extradition, since the law provides that a fugitive cannot be surrendered while proceedings on such appeals are pending. The sequence of events demonstrates how it is Mr. Osman's own use of the appeal channels open to him which has led to his substantial period in prison.

6/12/85 Mr. Osman arrested on provisional extradition warrant.
7/12/85 Mr. Osman remanded in custody.
24/1/86 Home Office issued authority to Bow Street magistrates' to proceed with extradition case under Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, in respect of an arrest warrant issued in Hong Kong on 20th January 1986.
25/4/86 Further warrant of arrest issued in Hong Kong in respect of 43 offences.
13/5/86 Second authority to proceed issued superseding the authority to proceed of 24.1.86.
27/5/86 Committal proceedings began at Bow Street.
1/6/87 Bow Street magistrate committed Mr. Osman to await the Home Secretary's order for surrender to Hong Kong.
9/6/87 Application by Mr. Osman for writ of habeas corpus to have the magistrate's decision set aside.
30/6/87 Complaint to European Commission of Human Rights.
30/3/88 After four-week hearing Divisional Court dismissed application for writ of habeas corpus.
29/4/88 Divisional Court refused leave to appeal to House of Lords.
13/5/88 Mr. Osman petitioned House of Lords direct for leave to appeal and made second application for writ of habeas corpus on grounds of diplomatic immunity.
14/7/88 Petition to House of Lords rejected.
21/10/88 Divisional Court hearing of second application for writ of habeas corpus.
21/12/88 Divisional Court dismissed second application for writ of habeas corpus.
14/2/89 Divisional Court refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
24/2/89 Mr. Osman petitioned House of Lords direct for leave to appeal.
13/3/89 European Commission declared inadmissible Mr. Osman's complaint under the European Convention on Human Rights.
4/5/89 Court of Appeal, Hong Kong, quashed the arrest warrant issued in Hong Kong on 30th November 1985, on the ground that it had been vitiated by bias.
9/5/89 Mr. Osman's solicitors sought adjournment of their petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords and gave notice of their intention to make a third application for habeas corpus because of the quashing in Hong Kong of the warrant of 30th November 1985, and the issue of a diplomatic note by the Liberian Ambassador relating to Mr. Osman's claim of diplomatic immunity.
6/6/89 The High Court granted leave to apply for a third writ of habeas corpus.
26/7/89 The Divisional Court refused Mr. Osman's application for bail.
26/9/89 Application for judicial review deferred to start of habeas corpus proceedings which were due in the Divisional Court on 3rd October.
4/10/89 Judicial review proceedings began, to be followed by habeas corpus proceedings on the question of what constituted "relevant offences" for the purposes of Mr. Osman's extradition.
5/10/89 Application for independent enquiry refused. Application for bail refused. Case adjourned to 19th October.
26/10/89 The Divisional Court adjourned for judgment on both judicial review and habeas corpus proceedings.
17/11/89 The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Osman's applications for judicial review and habeas corpus. The court decided that Mr. Osman had been lawfully arrested and there had been no dishonesty or abuse of process. It also decided that all the charges faced by Mr. Osman were relevant offences for the purpoes of extradition, although it was agreed that a phrase objected to in the wording of one charge would be deleted.
5/12/89 The Divisional Court refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
15/12/89 Mr. Osman lodged a further petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords direct, against the Divisional Court's judgment on the third habeas corpus application.
1/2/90 Mr. Osman's outstanding petitions for leave to appeal to the House of Lords were refused by the House of Lords Appeal Committee.
2/2/90 Mr. Osman lodged his fourth habeas corpus application.

Mr. Osman cannot be surrendered to the Hong Kong authorities until this further application has been heard.