CHINA.
No.
C. O.
15244
REC'd
334
RECD 24 AUG 86/
The Law Officers of the Crown and Dr. Deane to the Earl of Rosebery.-(Received
My Lord,
August 2.)
Royal Courts of Justice, July 31, 1886.
WE are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Julian Pauncefote's letter of the 13th instant, stating that he was to transmit to us the papers relating to a demand made by the Chinese Government for the extradition from Hong Kong of two Chinese named Cheung-a-Chi and Cheung Ayo.
That we should observe that in the case of Cheung-a-Chi the Hong Kong authorities had declined to surrender the accused to the Chinese (A, from Colonial Office, May 25), and that considerable dissatisfaction had been thereby caused to the Chinese Government (B and C, from Mr. O'Conor Nos. 138 and 147).
That the extradition of Chinese fugitives in Hong Kong was carried out under Article XXI of the Treaty of Tien-tsin and the Colonial Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, supplemented by Ordinance No. 2 of 1871.
That you were also to refer us to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Kwok Asing v. the Attorney-General of Hong Kong (L. R., Privy Council Appeal Cases, vol. v, 1873-74, p. 179).
That Sir J. Pauncefote was to inclose the draft of a reply to the letter from the Colonial Office of the 25th May, and that he was to request that we would be good enough to inform your Lordship whether it met with our concurrence, and, if not, that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to the nature of the instructions which should be sent to the Governor of Hong Kong for his guidance in these extradition cases.
That, as regarded the case of Cheung Ayo, your Lordship was disposed to think that the extradition of the prisoner was properly refused, and that your Lordship would be glad to be informed whether we concurred in that view.
Choung-a-Chi and
by Hong Kong authorities.
Kong for his guidance
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to report-
That we think that the limitation of the cases in which the Governor in Council
Instructions to
may properly decline to extradite after a prisoner has been committed by the
Governor of Hong
Magistrate proposed in your Lordship's draft despatch to the Colonial Office is too
in extradition cases.
narrow. We assume that the Magistrate does not feel himself bound to commit unless there are "probable reasons for believing that the prisoner is guilty," and, whilst the Governor in Council should not dissent from the Magistrate's conclusion except on grave grounds, yet, if he is satisfied that the opinion of the Magistrate was founded on insufficient evidence, he may properly, and ought to, decline to act on it.
certain alterations.
We venture, therefore, to submit for your Lordship's consideration that the
Approve draft to
instructions intended to be contained in the paragraph in question should be altered
Colonial Office with
in the manner which we have ventured to indicate in red ink in the draft proposed
despatch.
Subject to these observations, we concur in and approve of the views proposed to be expressed by your Lordship in the draft despatch.
We concur with your Lordship in thinking that the extradition of Cheung Ayo
Extradition of
was rightly refused.
We have, &c. (Signed)
C. RUSSELL. HORACE DAVEY.
J. PARKER DEANE.
Cheung Ayo was rightly refused.
* Treaty of Tien-tsin; Ordinances of Hong Kong, No. 2 of 1850, and No. 2 of 1871 (see volumes of Hong Kong Ordinances, inclosed); Law Officers' Report, September 18, 1884; ditto, August 20 and September 19, 1885; Judgment of Privy Council in Kwok Asing v. Attorney-General of Hong Kong (see 5 Law Reports, Appeal Cases, p. 179); Colonial Office to Foreign Office, May 25, 1886 (Case of Cheung-a-Chi); ditto, July 6, 1886 (Case of Cheung Ayo); Mr. O'Conor, No. 138, April 29, ditto, No. 147, May 3, 1886; proposed Draft to Colonial Office.
[876-37]