COPY
158926/4
C O
1063
Director of Public Prosections Dept.
Root 10 JAN 12
440
U. S. of S.
The practice pursued in this country in cases of extra-
dition is so fully and clearly set cut in Sir Albert de
Rutzen' cbservations that I have nothing to add to them, except that, in my opinion, the practice which has obtained
in this country is one far more likely to preserve Inter-
national frio dship wich certainly cught to be an
objective in extradition enses than that which Sir Francis Figgott proposes to establish in the Crown Colony of HongKong.
with the profoundest respect to Sir Francis Piggott (who
-
-
is rightly regarded as an authority on extradition), the dicta
to be found in his judgment in th. onse of Li Yu Kui, thet
when once a requisition has been consented to "the foreign
"original proceedings drop cut" (with be it noted, the important "exception as to the evidence which has been taken in ther); the
"question before the English Court is entirely one of Snglish
"law; the questions(not the proceedings) before the Magistrate
"ere essentielly English from beginning to end; it is impossible
To say the foreign Government is a party aggrieved, or that there
"is any analogy between the position of the foreign Government
"and that of a complainant in an English criminal case;" are not
in my humble opinion, free from controversy.
"
In all extredition ce.sss. before making an order of
committel and surrender, it is certainly one of the duties
of the investigating Magistrate to be satisfied by legal
evidence of the existence of prima facie proof of the commission
of a crime which is an offence against the lew both of the
demanding and of th surrendering country; and with the
performance of this duty it does not reem to me that the dieta
of the learned Chief Justice are in harmony, and that it
might become one most difficult to fulfil were the demanding
Government to be precluded fror employing professionel aseistence
to
Ted