1
2
6.
Article 2(3) in the
model agreement was not adopted because convictions "in absentia" are not possible under Australian law.
ARTICLE 2(4)
7.
This was included at Australian request to define precisely the relevant points in time at which double criminality must be assessed. It is a useful and practical
R addition when will not necessitate any charge in Hong Kong's laws and practice.
ARTICLE 3
8..-
Australia agreed that the right to refuse the surrender of nationals could be included but insisted that where this right is exercised the requesting Party should be entitled to request that prosecution be considered by the relevant authorities of the Requested Party. We explained that Hong Kong had very limited extra-territorial jurisdiction and that we would, in any event, usually take the view that prosecution would be inappropriate. The Australia delegation understood this but nevertheless considered such a requirement important. We would emphasise that the obligation here is only to consider prosecution; there is no obligation actually to prosecute.
ARTICLE 4
9.
ARTICLE 57"
10.
No substantive change.
This is substantively the same as Article 12(1) of the model agreement.
ARTICLES 6 & 7
11.
At
the request of the Australia delegation, Articles 5(1) and (3), 6 and 15 of the model agreement were reorganised into two Articles, Articles 6 and 7, dealing with mandatory and discretionary refusal to surrender. The grounds for mandatory and discretionary refusal are substantively the same as in the model agreement.
ARTICLE 6
12.
Article 6 (1) is substantively the same Article 6 of the model agreement. Article 6(2) is included
as