CONFIDENTIAL
125547
MDLOAN 3049
5.
THIRD
PARA 5 OF YOUR TUR. WE CONCLUDED THAT THE SECOND, AND FINAL SENTENCES OF PARA 3 OF THE REPLY WERE NECESSARY, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. (INCIDENTALLY, WE ASSUME YOU WERE IN FACT REFERRING TO THE THIRD, FOURTH AND FINAL SENTENCES). ALTHOUGH IT
IS TRUE THAT NEITHER IN THIS LETTER NOR IN HIS LAST DID LORD
WINCHILSEA EXPRESSLY REFER TO RENDITION, IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM
THE GENERAL TENOR OF BOTH LETTERS THAN AMONG HIS CONCERNS IS THE
POSSIBILITY OF THE RE-TRIAL OF AN OFFENDER. THIS POINT CAN ONLY
BE SENSIBLY ADDRESSED IN REPLY IF REFERENCES TO RENDITION, NECESSARILY CAST IN THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE THREE SENTENCES IN QUESTION, ARE INCLUDED.
6.
PARA 6 OF YOUR TUR. WE HAVE AMENDED PARA 6 OF THE REPLY
TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF YOUR FIRST POINT: THE REFERENCE NOW IS TO QUOTE FUGITIVE OFFENDERS RETURNED TO HONG KONG FROM THE UK UNQUOTE, WITH NO PRE OR POST 1997 QUALIFICATION. AS TO YOUR SECOND POINT, WE APOLOGISE IF WE APPEARED TO BE MOVING UNDULY RAPIDLY INTO NEW AREAS. WE HAVE AMENDED THE REPLY TO REFER ONLY TO ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE UK AND HONG KONG. BUT LORD
WINCHILSEA'S LETTER PROMPTED US TO REALISE THAT IF SUCH ARRANGEMENTS EXIST IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE
SAFEGUARDS IN THEM ARE AS APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARTS OF CHINA AS
THEY ARE TO HONG KONG. THIS IS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE
POSSIBILITY THAT AN OFFENDER RETURNED FOR TRIAL IN HONG KONG FROM
THE UK TURNS OUT ALSO TO BE WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER OFFENCE ELSEWHERE IN THE PRC. WE WOULD ONLY BE WILLING TO RETURN
HIM TO HONG KONG IF ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS EXISTED IN RELATION TO
THE POSSIBILITY OF TRIAL IN THE PRC FOR THE OTHER OFFENCE. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE AMENDED THE REPLY TO LORD WINCHILSEA, THE STATEMENT IN THE FINAL SENTENCE OF PARA 6 OF QUR TELNO 2949 REMAINS A VALID AND NECESSARY OBJECTIVE. THAT SAID, IT IS AN
ISSUE WE DO NOT IMMEDIATELY NEED TO ADDRESS.
THUS,
፡
HOWE
YYYY
MAIN
23
DISTRIBUTION
24
HONG KONG AGREEMENT RESTRICTED
LIMITED
HKD
DEP HD/PUSD
PS/LORD GLENARTHUR
PS/MR EGGAR
PAGE
CONFIDENTIAL
2