10.
The papers then went to the Ministry of Justice which decided, after almost a year's delay, to overturn the extradition decision claiming that some of the charges against
Saniman were invalid under French extradition law and that
others had been rejected by the Court in 1987. The HKG, having won in the Courts, regarded this decision as a severe blow and were dissatisfied with the cursory explanation given for it. Their lawyers in Paris told them that the only way in which the
case could be reopened was through a procedure known as a
"Gracious Request" ("Recours Gracieux") to the French
Government which could only be conveyed to the French by HMG on
HKG's behalf.
11.
Given the importance of the case to Hong Kong and possible difficulties regarding Hong Kong's post-1997 status in French eyes, FCO Ministers agreed to support Hong Kong's efforts to
seek administrative redress in France. The "Recours Gracieux"
was lodged with the French authorities on 19 May 1992. Under
this procedure (a sort of "administrative review") a failure by
the French authorities to reply within two months constitutes
an implied rejection. The only step beyond that is to seize
the Conseil d'Etat. This was done in November 1992. We kept the Ministry of Justice and the Quai d'Orsay informed
throughout. Those proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat
which have so far generated seven sets of pleadings are still
in progress.
12.
Although extradition cases often go to the Conseil d'Etat, we are advised that this is the first time that a government
has applied to the Conseil d'Etat on an extradition issue.
This approach on HKG's behalf may have raised some French
eyebrows, because it could be taken to be politically contentious and may set an undesirable precedent for them.