20
·X. Ser now also M. Busles
minute of 16/8/32 on Grueral 90157/
attached.
1932
view they were not. It is true that I pointed out
to Sir S.Cripps that I had myself advised (see my
minute of 19.9.31 on Hong Kong 82837/31 attached) that
the order made under section 6 of the Deportation
Ordinance should be withdrawn, and that Quoc should
be ordered to leave Hong Kong within a specified time;
that I understood Mr.Bushe had agreed to this (see his
minute of 6.10.31 on the same file); and that this
was the course we had thought it proper to adopt.
It is also true that I explained to Sir S.Cripps that
it was contrary to the principles generally observed
to use the machinery provided by Ordinances for the
expulsion of undesirable persons as a substitute for
extradition proceedings (i.e. where such proceedings
were not possible), and I cited the advice which I gave
(and with which Mr.Bushe agreed) in the recent
Trinidad case (see my minute of 15.6.32; Mr.Bushe's
minute of 16.6.32; and the Department's letter to the
Foreign Office No.7 – in Trinidad 95839/32 attached)
All this, I may add, was gone into in view
of the attitude adopted at the outset by Sir S.Cripps
himself and in similar circumstances I should take
the same line again. The apparent suggestion that a
client should not be frank with counsel who is appearing
for him is, to say the least of it, a novel one!
In any case, I told Sir S.Cripps at the
consultation that I did not wish him to commit us in
any way until I had informed Mr.Bushe (who, owing to othe
work, had been unable to attend and had asked me to go
in his place) of the position.
This I did, and
Mr.Bushe subsequently got into touch with Sir S.Cripps
on the telephone.
H. Duncan.
2 August, 1932.
P.P.O.
Page 20Page 21