CONFIDENT:
2
Article
2(3) in the
model
was not
agreement 6. adopted because convictions "in absentia" are not possible under Australian law.
ARTICLE 2(4)
1.
This was included at Australian request to define in time at which double precisely the relevant points criminality must be assessed. It is a useful and practical in Hong necessitate any charge addition when will not Kong's laws and practice.
ARTICLE 3
8.
that the right to refuse the agreed Australia 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 We Party. the Requested the
authorities of relevant explained that Hong Kong had very limited extra-territorial jurisdiction and that we would, in any event, usually take
be inappropriate. the view that prosecution would
this but nevertheless Australia delegation understood
important. We would considered
a requirement
is only to consider emphasise that the obligation here prosecution; there is no obligation actually to prosecute.
ARTICLE 4
such
The
9.
No substantive change.
ARTICLE 5
10.
This is substantively of the model agreement.
the same as Article 12(1)
ARTICLES 6 & 7
At
the
request
of
Australia the
delegation,
11. Articles 5(1) and (3), 6 and 15 of the model agreement were two Articles, Articles 6 and 7, dealing reorganised into with mandatory and discretionary refusal to surrender.
refusal are grounds for mandatory and discretionary substantively the same as in the model agreement.
ARTICLE 6
12.
The
substantively is 6 (1) Article
the same Article 6(2) is included
as
Article 6 of the model agreement.
CONFIDENTIAL
30