Richardson
Mr Richardson (NTD)
Mr Crowson (HKIOD)
CONFIDENTIAL
espatched Des
รา
157
New so
(182
HONG KONG : GODBER
1.
Please see Mr Royle's note on the attached submission.
2.
13/9
Mr Crowson will recall that I spoke to Mr de Winton last week to see whether the Law Officers should be consulted and in his view it would be more appropriate to consult the Home Office.
3. I attach a draft letter to the Home Office as requested by Miss Kelly, which can be copied to Mr de Winton. It should, I suggest, be sent to the head of the Home Office department dealing with extra- dition. Perhaps paragraph 8 could be amended to refer to whoever in the Home Office made the watch-list arrangements.
7 September 1973
A.R.R.
A R Rushford
Deputy Legal Adviser
175
1. It is necessary to consult the Home Office because proceedings under the Extradition or Fugitive Offenders Acts cannot be commenced in the UK without specific Home Office authority. This authority is customarily communicated to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bow Street who hears the case for surrendering the prisoner to the requesting State or Territory. Appeals from his decision can be made to higher courts. After the legal proceedings are complete the final decision whether or not to sign the warrant surrendering the fugitive lies with the Home Secretary.
2. The scheme relating to the rendition of Fugitive Offenders within the Commonwealth was I think extended as deliberate act of policy to the dependent territories. It would have been normal practice to consult each dependent territory before extending the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 to them.
It is I fear probable
3. The letter should I suggest go to the Head of C3 Division at the Home Office, Mr Charles Prior. that they will oppose this proposal.
CONFIDENTIAL
ArHanhans.
(LE. Hanham)
Nationality & Treaty Dept. 10 September 1973.