CO885-(15-16) — Page 418

7150

No. 27.

(NATAL.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Section 30 (4) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881: Jurisdiction of Bow Street

MY LORD,

Magistrate.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

February 27, 1906. WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified to us in Mr. F. Graham's letter of the 21st instant, stating that he was directed to request that we would be so good as to favour your Lordship with our opinion on the following question which had been raised by the Government of Natal regarding the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.

That, as would be seen from the telegram, a copy of which was enclosed, the Supreme Court of Natal had quashed certain proceedings in the Court of the Magis- trate at Durban, on the ground that there was no evidence that the Magistrate possessed like jurisdiction as one of the Magistrates at Bow Street.

That the section of the Act as to the interpretation of which your Lordship would be glad to receive our views, appeared to be Section 30 (4), which provides that the jurisdiction under Part I. of the Act shall be exercised in a British posses- sion by any Judge, Justice of the Peace, or other Officer having the like jurisdiction as one of the Magistrates of the Metropolitan Police Court in Bow Street. That the Supreme Court would appear to hold that the jurisdiction of the Bow Street Magistrates referred to is not their jurisdiction irrespective of the Act, but their jurisdiction conferred by the Act. That it would appear that that interpretation was open to grave doubt. That the intention of the Act seems to have been to confer on (1) in England the Magistrates at Bow Street; (2) in the Colonies, Magis- trates with like powers-certain functions in connection with fugitive offenders, and that, therefore, the jurisdiction referred to should be considered the ordinary juris- diction of the Bow Street Magistrates.

That if this interpretation were correct, there arose, of course, the 'further ques- tion, which was one mainly of fact, and which could not be decided on the informa- tion available in the Colonial Office, whether the ordinary jurisdiction of a Magis- trate at Durban was like that of a Bow Street Magistrate. That your Lordship was taking steps to obtain-for transmission to the Governor of Natal—a statement of the ordinary functions of a Bow Street Magistrate.

That Mr. Graham was accordingly to request that we would be good enough to take into consideration the facts above set forth, and to report:-

Whether the jurisdiction of one of the Magistrates of the Metropolitan Police Court in Bow Street referred to in Section 30 (4) of the Fugitive Offenders' Act, 1881, is his ordinary jurisdiction irrespective of the jurisdiction conferred by that Act, or is the jurisdiction conferred by that Act?

We have taken the question into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's command, have the honour to

Report--

That in our opinion jurisdiction of one of the Magistrates of the Metropolitan Police Court in Bow Street referred to in Section 30 (4) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, is his jurisdiction in matters of extradition irrespective of the jurisdiction conferred by the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.

The Right Honourable

The Earl of Elgin, K.G.,

We are, &c..

JOHN L. WALTON. W. S. ROBSON.

&c., &c., &c.

25 Wt 1619 7:06 D & S

5 23963

!

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TTTT C.O.885

سلسلات....

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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