of its contents. His comments must of course be placed on oath.
(G)
Any matter on oath as hereinbefore mentioned must of
course be properly authenticated for use as evidence in this country,
if such becomes necessary.
3. (a)
It is quite clear that those representing Godber in this
country will be instructed to take every step formal or factual to
prevent this extradition.
(b) It is equally apparent that they will, perfectly properly,
take such steps.
(c)(i) We are at the moment concerned as to whether or no the
affidavit of Mr Hobley clearly and incontrovertibly shows that
conspiracy to effect an unlawful object constituted an offence against
the laws of Hong Kong in February March 1971.
400
(ii) May Mr Hobley please therefore swear a further duly
authenticated affidavit exhibiting thereto an unamended Government
printers copy of Ordinance 2 of 1966, stating that this is the ordinance
referred to at paragraph 10 of his existing evidence and that, "It is,
and has been since 1966, and, (if such be the case), before, an offence against
1
the law as it existed and now exists in Hong Kong to conspire with
another to commit an illegal act."
(iii) No doubt the contents of sub-paragraph (ii) above can be
spelt out from the evidence as it now exists, but let us please be
sure and not get involved in useless, time consuming and expensive
litigation.
4.
May Paragraphs 2 3 inclusive hereof be transmitted
verbatim to the authorities in Hong-Kong.
5, Paper Fuildings,
Templo, E.C.4.
مسلنا
Leliga
18th September, 1974