CONFIDENTIAL
37813
OFFICIAL GAZETTE AND INCLUDES EVERY CONSTITUENT PART, COLONY
OR DEPENDENCY OF ANY COMMONWEALTH COUNTRY SO SPECIFIED OR
ADDED'. THE UNITED KINGDOM IS SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE.
3.
THUS, ALTHOUGH HONG KONG IS NOT EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN
THE ORDER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO UK, IT WOULD
SEEM FROM THE ABOVE THAT, AS A COLONY OF A COMMONWEALTH
COUNTRY SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE, HONG KONG FALLS WITHIN THE
TERMS OF THE ORDER.
4. IN YOUR FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE MEA ON THE MATTER
YOU WILL OF COURSE WISH TO AVOID GIVING ANY IMPRESSION THAT
WE ARE CAPABLE OF MAKING AN AUTHORITATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIAN
LEGISLATION. BUT IF THIS IS THE POINT CAUSING CONCERN TO THE
LEGAL DIVISION IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEY MAY HAVE MADE AN ERROR
OF INTERPRETATION WHICH OUR CONSTRUCTION MAY SERVE TO CORRECT.
5. NO OTHER GROUNDE FOR DIFFICULTY OCCUR TO UE, UNLESS
THADANI IS AN INDIAN NATIONAL AND THERE IS SOME PROVISION IN
THEIR LAWS WHICH PRECLUDES THE SURRENDER OF INDIAN NATIONALE. WE SOUGHT, ADVICE ON THIS QUESTION IN OUR CORRESPONDENCE WITH
YOU ABOUT THE SIDHU CASE (NTD'S LETTERE GNX 384/302/SID/ES OF
7 MAY 1985 AND 6 JUNE 1985 REFER) BUT YOUR HONORARY LEGAL
ADVISER OMITTED TO COVER THE POINT IN HIS REPLIES. SINCE HE
DEALT AT SOME LENGTH WITH OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CASE, HOWEVER, WE ASSUME HE IS SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO NATIONALITY BAR TO
EXTRADITION.
6. WE HAVE NO RECORD OF ANY PRECEDENT FOR EXTRADITION FROM
INDIA TO HONG KONG BUT SUCH A CASE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY COME
TO OUR ATTENTION. HONG KONG ARE IN A BETTER POSITION TO SAY
WHETHER THEY HAVE MADE A PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO INDIA.
-
HOWE
OCMIAN 7813
MINIMAL
NTD
SAD
нко
2
CONFIDENTIAL
1