?
'MAY 14 '92 20:04 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
34
P.17
the resources applied to it it was only proper that the Court and the Advocat Général allowed themselves time to become familiar with the documentation.
I suggested to Robert that we prepare a document dealing with:-
(1)
the role of the Court in the requested state upon extradition; and
consideration of duality of criminal conduct.
(il)
127. I thought the new facts should be highlighted and that we should set out for De Touzalin the law on limitations. I inquired as to whether we should engage an extradition expert and whether the Hong Kong Government could intervene as a party. There appeared to be some reluctance to engage the services of a specialist. I was told there was no precedent for intervention by a requesting state but that there was no law specifically forbidding it.
128.
On the 18th of June 1990 after some inquiry I was advised that Mr. Danny Cohen was lawyer in France and had some considerable experience in
extradition.
(For the rest of that week I was engaged in a discovery application by Mr. Osman in the Divisional Court in London UK4).
129. On the 20th of June 1990 M. Robert drafted a note for me highlighting areas that should be brought to the attention of M. De Touzalin. (Annexure "H"). On the 25th of June 1990 I attended Siméons and conferred with M. Robert. We reviewed a detailed note to De Touzalin. We considered the question of interruption of limitation periods. We also set out, in detail, the role of the Court in a request state in relation to transposition of conduct and included authorities in support of our contentions. We suggested to M. De Touzalin it was an error to compare crimes as they were particularised in Hong Kong law with equivalent crimes under French law to see if they correspond.