CO885(3-4) — Page 180

34

of apprehending fugitive offenders unaccompanied with the salutary safeguards contained in the existing enactments for the better apprehension of fugitive offenders (6 and 7 Vict., c. 34, as amended by 16 and 17 Vict., c. 118) would lead to serious mischief.

These precautions are absolutely necessary for a reasonable protection of the accused. While we seek to prevent offenders escaping the consequences of violating the laws of one Colony by obtaining an asylum in another, we must be careful not to establish a system by which any avoidable duress and punishment may be inflicted upon the accused before trial. Too great care cannot be observed to ascertain that the person acoused has been guilty of the offence whereof he is charged before he is sent, for instance, from Tasmania or New Zealand to answer a charge in Western Australia. It would be better that all fugitive offenders should go unpunished, than that one instance of an innocent person so treated should occur, and that there exists no security against the occurrence of such a case is sufficiently testified by the fact that warrants are not infrequently issued on receipt of information on oath, and the complaint subsequently dismissed at the hearing of the case. The system by which Magistrates of one county in England back warrants issued by Magistrates of another county for the purpose of authorising the execution of such warrants out of the county where first issued, might perhaps advan- tageously be applied to such conterminous colonies as New South Wales and Victoria; while, in my opinion, it would be a practice fraught with mischief when applied generally, as proposed. The extension, I submit, by the Imperial Parliament of the provisions of the existing enactment (now confined to cases of felony) so as to embrace the proposed indictable misdemeanors, viz., desertion of wife or child, fraudulent bankruptcy, fraudu lent debtors, and breaches of trust would be desirable and unobjectionable.

3. As to the establishment of a Court of Appeal, I am of opinion that the valuable privilege of an appeal in the last resort to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council should on no account be surrendered by the Colonists. We should endeavour by all means at our command to induce the Imperial Government so to improve the working power of that Committee as to obviate the delays fow complained of, but the colonists never should forego the inestimable advantage of a final decision by a legal tribunal com. posed of the most eminent and experienced jurists of the age. Many questions may arise in these Colonies, the final decisions of which by local tribunals will never be satisfactory to the litigants. The establishment of the proposed Court of Appeal for Australasia, 'provided the decisions of such Court be not final and conclusive, will no doubt work bene- ficially, and, in most cases, render unnecessary any appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But I would suggest that it be left optional with the appellant to resort to the Colonial Court of Appeal in the first instance, or at once to appeal direct to the Judicial Committee. I perceive that the Commissioners in their Report and in the suggestions for a Bill to be passed by the Imperial Parliament leave this question as to how far the decisions of the Court of Appeal shall be final for the determination of the several Legislatures.

4. With respect to the other subjects referred to, and the further suggestion that the subjects of naturalization, marriage, patent, and copyright might be included in the proposed system of intercolonial legislation, I think, not, however, without distrust of my own opinion when in conflict with those of the members of your Commission, that for Colonies not included in a system of political federation, and so widely separated as some are, the inconveniences that will necessarily attend the proposed scheme outweigh all contemplated advantage.

The Hon. J. J. Casey, M.P.,

I have, &c.

(Signed)

ARCHD. PAULL BURT.

36, Temple Court, Melbourne.

No. 8.

Sir,

35

No. 9.

Colonial Office to Home Office.

Downing Street, January 26, 1876. I AM directed by the Earl of Carnarvon to transmit to you, for the consideration of Mr. Secretary Cross, the accompanying papers, received from the Colonies of Western Australia and the Cape.

2. Mr. Cross will observe that in the case of these Colonies it has been proposed by local legislation to meet a difficulty experienced in obtaining the rendition of offenders or accused

who persons pass from the jurisdiction of one Colonial Goyernment to another immediately on its borders.

3. There is apparently no doubt that both the Act of the Cape Legislature and the Bill proposed by Queensland are repugnant to the provisions of Imperial legislation, and are therefore void, but the representations which Lord Carnarvon has received from both the Australasian and South African groups of Colonies of the necessity for making further provision than is made under the existing Imperial Acts for the rendition of offen- ders leads him to think that an amendment of the law in the direction pointed out in the Queensland Bill is very desirable in the case of groups of Colonies, the members of which are either conterminous or closely adjoining one another.

4. If these groups of Colonies were confederated no such difficulty would arise, and it is not improbable that a sense of the difficulty may be among the first impulses towards that more complete association which is much to be desired in the common interest of all the members of each group. Lord Carnarvon would therefore be most unwilling to check any tendency towards united action on their part, and would desire that everything should be done to make them feel that they are in practice, as they are by their origin, language, and customs, members of one community.

5. It appears to Lord Carnarvon that there are two principal matters in respect of which it is desired that the Acts 6 & 7 Vict. c. 34, and‍16 & 17 Vict. c. 118 should be amended one the limitation of offences for which offenders may be apprehended to the case of felony, and the other the requirement that warrants should be backed by a Chief Justice or Judge of a Superior Court of law. In both of these respects Lord Car- narvon would wish to meet the views of the Colonies, and he would accordingly propose to amend the above-mentioned Acts so as to bring them into conformity with the Cape Act (so far as it relates to the Colonies of Natal and Griqua-Land West), and the Queens- land Bill, as between members of one and the same group of British Colonies.

6. Lord Carnarvon would, however, wish to be favoured with the views of Mr. Secretary Cross upon the subject before taking any step in the matter.

Sir,

I am, &c.

(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

No. 10.

Law Officers' Report, dated October 26, 1875.

THAT in our opinion the Cape Act, No. 29 of 1874, as far as it relates to the Colonies of Natal and Griqua-Land West, is void for repugnancy to the Act of

6 and 7 Vict., c. 34, as amended by 16 and 17 Vict., c. 118, on the grounds referred to in Sir Julian Pauncefote's letter.

(Signed)

RICHARD BAGGALLAY, JOHN HOLKER.

Home Office to Colonial Office.

Whitehall, February 4, 1876. I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Cross to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th ultimo,* forwarding for his consideration and opinion, papers from the Colonies of Western Australia and the Cape, on the subject of inter-Colonial extradition, and suggesting that the Acts 6 and 7 Vict., cap. 34, and 16 and 17 Vict., cap. 118, should be amended to meet, as far as possible, the Acts of those Colonies; and in reply, I am to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of Carnarvon, the accompanying copy of a Report upon the subject from Sir Thomas Henry, Chief Police Magistrate of the Metro- polis, and to request that you will convey to his Lordship Mr. Cross concurrence with the views expressed by Sir Thomas Henry.

The printed inclosures transmitted with your letter are herewith returned in com- pliance with your request.

I am, &c. (Signed) A. F. O. LIDDELL.

• No. 9.

(559)

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

TIT

Reference:--

C.O. 885

4 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

Page 180Page 181