2
We have now realised that, although these attempted repeals of
enactments supplementing the Extradition Acts were misguided, we
ought not to have dropped all reference to the Acts in question.
The reason why last session's repeals were wrong is that
extradition depends on treaties. On the other hand the Fugitive
Offenders Act 1967 does not so depend. The new section 3 for the
1967 Act inserted by paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill makes
Schedule 1 to the Act superfluous. It is therefore repealed in
our Schedule 14. But if that repeal is right, it must follow
that anything concerned with that Schedule also should go. We
therefore need to repeal enactments amending the Schedule and
provisions applying amendments of the Schedule to the Channel
Islands etc. I enclose draft amendments. I am sorry that the
· last of them leaves a slight grammatical awkwardness in the
Aviation Security Act, where we shall still have "Acts" in the
plural. But this is not particularly uncommon, and there seems
to be no need to remove itur primitus aufwardness caused by
the second amendssent
Part II of Schedule 13 to last session's Bill repealed section 33
of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Misuse of Drugs Act does
not feature in these present draft amendments because section 33
is only about extradition. We do not know why this is the one
case where the Fugitive Offenders Act was not brought in. But
since the test of whether an offence falls within the 1967 Act
will now be the length of the maximum sentence, offences under
the 1901 Act will now apparently be "relevant offences", just as
they have always been extradition crimes, We take it that this
is a deliberate piece of policy.