HOME OFFICE Whitehall London SW1
Telephone or 930
8100 ext 406
IN
MSTRY. 26 MAY 1974
GNX1/393/900/P.F.
(119)
L E Hanham Esq
Foreign & Commonweal Office
Nationality & Treaty Department Clive House
Petty France
LONDON SW1H 9HD
Dear Len
THE SPECIALITY RULE
悉
Your reference
Our reference
Date
8 May 1974
We undertook to let you have our considered view on the need for the Hong Kong authorities to give us assurances in order to meet the requirements of section 4(3) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, in the case of Godber. In short we do not think there is a need for them to be asked to do so, because we are satisfied that the Fugitive Offenders (Hong Kong) Order 1967 (SI No.1911) meets the requirements of section 4(3). Notwithstanding that section 14(2)(c) of the Act, as set out in the Schedule to the Order, would appear to allow the possibility of consent being given for proceedings in respect of a non-returnable offence, the provisions of section 4(3)(c) of the Act as it applies in the United Kingdom would preclude such consent being given. In other words it is the consent of the returning country which operates the limiting factor, and this is the reason why, when the Fugitive Offenders Bill was drafted, it was not thought necessary to pell out the restriction again in section 14(2)(c)
I should add that the speciality rule as set out in the Fugitive Offenders Act, and extended to Hong Kong by the Order, was based on paragraph 13 of the Commonwealth Scheme and you will see from sub- paragraph (2) that as regards con ent to trial for a different offence, the offence in question must be "a returnable offence of the same nature as the offence for which the fugitive/ was returned".
I enclose a copy of this letter which you might like to pass on to Rushford. Perhaps we could leave it that if he has any doubts he could speak to Henry Wollaston on the telephone (whom I consulted earlier this afternoon).
Your
Errian
B O BUBBEAR
Enc.
སྭ