布政司署
香港下亞厘畢道
**** Our Ref.:
* Your Ref.:
Mr R.J. Bunten
Hong Kong Office
CONFIDENTIAL
RECE!!
370/6
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
1. AUC 1993
LOWER ALBERT ROAD
HONG KONG
for
STRY
argent
INX
Foreign & Commonwealth office
New Roch
LEC'STRY
ion Taken
13 August 1993
Procedures for Notification:
Mutual Legal Assistance and Surrender of Pugitive Offenders
23
Thank you for your letter of 17 June. In the absence of David Edwards on leave I am replying.
We understand your reluctance about going down the path of implementing any arrangements for notification before 1997. As you indicate, the problems relate more to the surrender of fugitive offenders than to MLA. But, although we would have to implement arrangements similar to the ones for MLA for extradition cases, the practical effect would, I suggest, not be significant if, as intend, we agree to go ahead on the basis that:
we
(a) the procedures would apply only in respect of Hong Kong's new arrangements, and not in respect of existing UK derived extradition arrangements. That would mean that the procedures would not start to take effect until our new, local extradition legislation is in place (1995 at the earliest) and even then only to cases involving the few countries with which we would by then have signed agreements; and
(b) the UK's practice would not change. Although we would notify HMG of cases, HMG would continue not to exercise the right to instruct.
on the specific points you raise, it is certainly possible that the Chinese might use the introduction of procedures for notification before 1997 to justify their more intrusive approach post-1997. But we share your view that we could readily refute this by stressing the point at (b) above.
Your second point is whether introduction of notification procedures before 1997 could result in the UK being drawn into extradition cases. You are obviously
CONFIDENTIAL O
33