CO885-(15-16) — Page 614

*

34469

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.8

Reference :-

.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

No. 147.

(UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Reciprocal surrender, as between British and German territories in South Africa. of persons guilty of offences in connection with the diamond industry.]

SIR,

To Home Oilie», 17th March.

Royal Courts of Justice,

25th October, 1911.

WE were honoured with your commands signified to us in Sir H. W. Just's letter of the 9th May last, stating that he Colonial Office to Home Office, 13th February. was directed by you to forward to us, for Home Office, 3rd March.

our consideration, correspondence as noted in the margin, relative to a proposed sup- plementary extradition treaty between this country and Germany for the recipro- cal surrender, as between British and German territories in South Africa, of persons guilty of offences in connection with the diamond industry.

Memorandum.

Home Office, 12th April. Canadian Extra dition Act.

That it would be observed that, as regards Southern Rhodesia and the South African Protectorates, no difficulty was apprehended in giving effect to the proposed extradition arrangement.

That the procedure to be adopted in respect of the Union of South Africa was, however, not entirely free from doubt, and that you desired to have our advice on the matter before approaching the Union Government on the subject.

That, as at present advised, you were inclined to the view, expressed in the Home Office letter of the 12th April, 1911, that the most suitable method of dealing with the situation would be (if the Union Government desired the conclusion of an extradition treaty with Germany), that the Union Government should pass an Act adding diamond offences to the list of extraditable crimes as regards the territories of the Union: that an Order in Council should be passed under Section 18 of the Extradition Act of 1870, directing that the new law should, within the Union of South Africa, have effect as if it were part of the Extradition Act: that the pro- posed Extradition Treaty should then be concluded: and that the Order in Council passed under Section 2 of the Extradition Act of 1870, applying the Extradition Acts in respect of the new Treaty to the Union of South Africa, should apply those Acts subject to the modification introduced.

That you would, however, be glad if we would take the papers into our con- sideration and advise:--

(1) Whether the procedure proposed was, in our opinion, the proper proce-

dure to be adopted in the circumstances of the case;

(2) If not, what means should be adopted to attain the object in view;

(3) Generally upon the questions raised in the correspondence.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report--

(1) That, in our opinion, the procedure proposed with reference to the Union The offences

of South Africa cannot be adopted in the circumstances of this case.

to be dealt with include many which are altogether outside the scope of the Imperial Extradition Acts and cannot be brought within their scope save by the action of the Imperial Legislature.

(2) That the object in view might be attained-

(a) By amending the Imperial Act or by passing a new Act like that of 1906 (6 Ed. 7 Ch. 15), adding offences against the Diamond Laws to the list of extradition crimes; or

(b) by passing an Act in the Union Parliament on the lines of the Canadian Act, Chapter 155 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, with its own list of extradition crimes, and also making provision for carrying into effect in the Union territories the surrender of fugitive criminals as defined

(21761-2.) W7 96—1×[ 25. 111. D&S.

2