18
which was not in the original draft, was inserted because, by
reason of some constitutional change, the actual authority at
the time of the surrender might not be the same as the actual
authority at the time of the requisition.
12.
Section 6 of the principal Ordinance required the requisi-
-tion to be made "by some officer of the Chinese Government" . Paragraph (a) of section 4 of the present Ordinance amends that
section as as to make it possible for the requisition to be made
by any Chinese authority as defined above.
13.
Section 6 of the principal Ordinance also provides that
when the Governor has received a requisition he may, by order,
signify to a magistrate that the requisition has been made, "and require him to issue his warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive criminal". The fugitive criminal may, however, al-
ready be in custody as such by virtue of a warrant issued by a magistrate under section 8 of the principal Ordinance before the
In such a case a second war· receipt of the Governor's order.
rant of apprehension by the magistrate is obviously unnecessary and this is recognised by section 7 of the principal Ordinance. Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1870, is similar on this point in its wording to that of section 6 of the principal Ordinance, and it appears that the practice in England, when a fugitive criminal is already in custody as such, is for the Secretary of State to issue bis order to the magistrate, not to issue a warrant of apprehension, but" to proceed in conformity with the
provisions" of the Extradition Acts.
Paragraph (b) of section
4 of the present Ordinance, therefore, amends section 6 of the principal Ordinance sc as to give the Governor express power to
adopt a similar practice.
On the question of the English
9
practice Reg. v. Weil (1882) Q .B.D. 701, may be referred to.
It should be noted that, in view of Re Iu Ki Shing (1908) 3.
H.K.L.R.20, the magistrate's warrant of apprehension will still