His Worship-That seems to me the position of affairs, and with that decision the case ends.
obre.
Mr. Dennys-I think it very necessary the prisoners should understand how your Worship's mind works. If they are simply told they are sent to gaol they will want to commit suicide at
I don't want them to do that, because I think there is still a chance, so far as my man is concerned. I am afraid it is a slender one, because I know the Attorney-General thinks that if you commit they are bound to be given up, but I don't want the man to commit suicide, at least not until the last moment.
His Worship-There is one other point--it is scarcely necessary for me to refer to it--but with regard to what I said about discharging the prisoners upon the evidence of Leong Ayow falling to the ground, in doing so I of course did not do away with my liberty of action, but merely intended it, not as a promise to the prisoners, but as a preliminary notice to the prosecution given by way of courtesy, that that would very probably be the course I should take.
His Worship's remarks were then interpreted to the prisoners.
The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, May 5th, 1887.
CORRESPONDENCE.
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our Correspondents.
THE RENDITION CASE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS."
No. 60, Queen's Road Central, Hongkong, 4th May, 1887.
SIR, We beg to enclose a copy of a letter we have addressed to the Colonial Secretary in reference to this matter, with a request that you will publish the same in the next issue of your journal.
We also enclose, with a similar request, a copy of the correspondence that passed between the Crown Solicitor and ourselves with reference to the Perjury case arising out of the Rendition case, which was committed for trial at the last Criminal Sessions, together with a copy of the draft Information which was in the hands of the Acting Attorney-General when he informed the Acting Chief Justice that he did not think he could usefully occupy the time of the Court in prosecuting Leong Ayau for Perjury.
The extreme gravity of the case and the fact that the mail leaves to-morrow must be our excuse for any apparent discourtesy to His Excellency the Acting Governor in requesting you to publish the enclosed before we have received any answer to our letter.
We are, Sir,
Your obedient servants,
DENNYS & MOSSOP,
Solicitors for Leong Afu.
60, Queen's Road, Hongkong,
2nd May, 1887.
Sir,-We have the honour to enclose for the perusal and information of His Excellency the Acting Governor, nine declarations--(Declarations of Ho Fook, Lik Kai Ming, Fung Sai Taun, Im Abi, Cheong Asz, Cheong Sam, Wong Ho, Li Akit, and Ng Ayak)--that we have had taken before Mr. Coughtrie as a Justice of the Peace, with reference to a man named Leung Afa, who is at present detained in Victoria Gaol under a warrant of commitment issued by Mr. Wodehouse, one of the Police Magistrates, under Section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, and we respectfully ask His Excellency to immediately order the release of the said Leung Afa from Gaol, where he has been detained ever since the 19th of February last, as he has not been found guilty of any offence against the laws of China provided for by Section 21 of the Treaty of Tientsin incorporated in Ordinance 2 of 1871.
As upon the action taken by His Excellency Leung Afa depends, but also the lives, liberty and property of some two hundred hands of persons subject to the rule of Her Majesty the Queen in this Colony, we feel sure that His Excellency will pardon us if we take this opportunity of stating at some length the reasons we feel justified in urging the release of our client.
We do not intend to reiterate what Mr. Dennys urged before the Magistrate, but we cannot help feeling that His Excellency might misapprehend the position he holds with reference to the extradition of persons claimed from the Government of this Colony by the Government of China if we did not place the following explanation before him, and point out that he is not bound to hand over the prisoner to the Chinese Authorities because a prima facie case has been found against him.
Before, therefore, we address ourselves in any way to the merits of the case in which our client was the third prisoner, we purpose to draw the attention of His Excellency to what we humbly conceive to be the state of the Law with reference to the rendition of people from this Colony to the neighbouring Empire; and we feel convinced that should His Excellency come to the conclusion that our statements are worthy of even the very slightest attention, he would not in any event allow Leung Afa to be transmitted to any of the Chinese Authorities until the whole question had been referred to Her Majesty's Government in England.
For the purpose of enabling His Excellency to understand why we ask him to put the construction we claim that he should upon the two local Ordinances 2 of 1850 and 2 of 1871, we must first of all point out that there is no Extradition Treaty between England and China--that is to say, there is no Extradition Treaty in the sense in which these words are used in English law books.
In treaties made for the extradition of alleged criminals between European Governments provision is made in some instances for the non-rendition of persons who belong to the state from which their rendition is claimed. For instance, France refuses to give up to the English authorities for trial Frenchmen who, having committed crimes in England, have sought refuge in France; but in almost all, if not in all, cases provision is made that the person claimed shall not be tried for political crimes or for other crimes committed before the crime for which rendition is claimed.
Provision is likewise made for the non-rendition, where, according to the law of the state from which rendition is claimed, the time for prosecuting the particular offence alleged has terminated, and other provisions are sometimes inserted for the return of the accused to the country from which he is claimed and for the admission of depositions taken before the authorities of the country making the claim.
No Rendition Treaty containing these or similar provisions exists between England and China, and therefore any law books containing statements of the law based upon Treaties of this nature become to a great extent worthless when considering the action His Excellency should pursue with reference to rendition from this Colony to China.
To illustrate shortly what we have just pointed out, Franz Muller, a German living in London, after murdering Mr. Briggs upon the North London Railway, fled to the United States and was given up by them upon a claim for his rendition made by the English Government. Had he fled to Canton instead of New York, he could not have been claimed by England under any Extradition Treaty with China.
To put the converse of the case: if our client in this case had been residing in London instead of in Hongkong at the time the Chinese Official La Loi applied for his arrest, could he have been claimed from England by China under any Extradition Treaty? We think there cannot be the slightest doubt that he could not.
Having, we trust, shown clearly that no Extradition Treaty is in existence between England and China we would respectfully urge that if there is any extradition from this Colony to China, which is extremely doubtful, the whole of the law that governs it is contained in the two Hongkong Ordinances above referred to, 2 of 1850 and 2 of 1871; but before asking His Excellency to read these Ordinances in the way and the only way we submit in which they can be properly read and construed, we would ask him to allow us to call attention to the case referred to by Mr. Wodehouse when giving his decision and committing Leong Afu to Gaol: we mean the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong...
His Worship-That seems to me the position of affairs, and with that decision the case ends.
obre.
Mr. Dennys-I think it very necessary the prisoners should understand how your Worship's mind works. If they are simply told they are sant to rol they will want to commit suicide at
I don't want them to do that, because I think there is still a chance, so far as my man is concerned. I am afraid it is a slender one, bo- cause I know the Attorney-General thinks that if you commit they are bound to be given up. but I don't want the man to pommit suicide, at least not until the last moment.
His Worship-There is one other point--it is scarcely necessary for me to refer to it--but with regard to what I said about discharging the pri- soners upon the evidence of Leong Ayow falling to the ground, in doing so I of course did not do away with my liberty of action, but merely in-. tended it, not as a promise to the prisoners. bnt as a preliminary notice to the prosecution given by way of courtesy, that that would very probably by the course I should take.
His Worship's remarks were then interpreted. to the prisoners.
The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, May 5th, 1887.
CORRESPONDENCE.
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions
expressed by our Correspondents.j
THE RENDITON CASE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS."
No. 60, Queen's Road Central, Hongkong, 4th May, 1857.
SIR, We beg to euclose a copy of a letter we have addressed to the Colonial Secretary in reference to this matter, with a request that you will publish the same in the mext issue of, your journal.
We also enclose, with a similar request, a copy of the correspondence that passed between the Crown Solicitor and ourselves with reference to the Parjury case arising out of the Rendition caso) which was committed for trial at the last Criminal Sessions, together with a copy of the draft Information which was in the hands of the Acting Attorney-General when he informed the Acting Chief Justice that he did not think he could usefally occupy the time of the Court in prosecuting Leong Ayau for Perjury.
The extreme gravity of the case and the fact that the mail leaves to-morrow mast be our exenso for any apparent discourtesy to His Excellency the Acting Governor in requesting you to publish the enclosed before we have received any auswer to our letter.
We are, Sir,
Your obedient servants, DENNYS & MOSSOP,
Solicitors for Leong Afu.
60, Queen's Road, Hongkong,
2nd May, 1887. Sir,-We have the honour to enclose for the perusal and information of His Excellency the Acting Gororuor, aine declarations--(Declar Ations of Ho Fook, Lik Kai Ming, Fung Sai Taun, Im Abi, Cheong Asz, Cheong Sam, Wong Ho, Li Akit, and Ng Ayak)-that we have had taken before Mr. Conghtrie as a Justice of the Peace, with reference to a man named Leung Afa, who is at present detained in Victoria Gaol under a warrant of commitment issued by Mr. Wodehouse, one of the Police Magistrates. under Section 3 of Ordinanes No. 2 of 1850, and we respectfully ask His Excellency to im- mediately order the release of the said Leung Afa from Gaol, where he has been detained ever since the 19th of February last, as he has not been found guilty of any offence against the laws of China provided for by Section 21 of the Treaty of Tientsin incorporated in Ordinance 2
of 18.
in
As upon the action taken by His Excellency
Leung Aru depends, but also the lives. liberty and property of some two hundred hands of persoas subject to the rule of Her Majesty the Queen in this Colony, we feel sure that His Ex- cellency will pardon us if we take this oppor tunity of stating at some lonrth the reasons we feel justified in arging the rol-ase of our client. We do not intend to reiterate what Mr. Dennys arged before the Magistrate, but we cannot help feeling that His Excellency might misapprehond the position he holds with reference to the extra- dition of persons claimed from the Government of this Colony by the Government of China if we did not ploe the following explanation before him, and point out that he is uot band to hand over the prisoner to the Chinese Authorities he causa a prima facie case has been found against him. Before, therefore, we address ourselves in any way to the merits of the case in which our client was the third prisoner, we purpose to draw the attention of his Excellency to what we hum. bly conceive to be the state of the Law with rai ference to the rendition of people from this Co- lony to the neighbouring Empire; and we feel con- vinced that should this Excellency come to the conclusion that our statements are worthy of even the very slightest attention, be world not in suy event allow Leang Afa to be transmitted to any of the Chinese Authorities nutil the whole question had been referred to Her Ma- jesty's Government in England.
7.
For the purpose of enabling His Excellency: to understand why we ask him to put the con- struction we claim that he should upon the two local Ordinances 2 of 1-50 and 2 of 1971, wa; must first of all point out that there is no Ex- tradition Treaty between England and Chius- that is to say, there is no Extradition Treaty in the sense in which these words are used in Eu- glish law books. In treaties made for the ex- tradition of alleged criminals between EnropeRN Governments provision is made in some instances for the non-rendition of persons who belong to the stato from which their rendition is claimed. For instance, France refuses to give up to the English authorities for trial Frenchman who, haring committed crimes in England. have sought refuge in France; but in almost all, if not in all, cases provision is made that the person claimed shall not be tried for political crimes or for other crimes committed before the crime for which rondition is claimed. Provision is likewise made for the non-rendition, where, according to the law of the state from which readition is claimed, the time for prose. outing the particular offence alleged has termi- nated, and other provisions are sometimes in- serted for the return of the accused to the country from which he is claimed and for the admission of depositions taken before the autho rities of the country making the claim. Noi Rendition Treaty containing these or similar provisions exists between England and China, and therefore any law books containing state- ments of the law based upon Treaties of this na ture become toa great extent worthless when con- sidering the action His Excellency should pursue with reference to rendition from this Colony to China. To illustrate shortly what we bare just pointed out, Franz Muller, a German living in London, aftor murdering Mr. Briggs upon the North London Railway, fled to the United States and was given up by them upon a claim for his rendition made by the English Government. Had he fled to Canton instead of New York, he could not have been claimed by England under any Extraditiou Tresty with China. To put the converse of the case: if our client in this case had been residing in London instead of in Hong kong at the time the Chinese Official La Loi applied for his arrest, could he have been claimed from England by Chinn under any Extradition Treaty? We think there cannot be the slightest doubt that he could not Having, we trust, shown clearly that no Extra. dition Treaty is in existence between England and China we would respectfully urge that if there is any extradition from this Colony to China, which is extremely doubtful, the whole of the law that governs it is contained in the two Hongkong Ordinances above referred to, 2 of 1850 and 2 of 1871; but before ashing His Ex- cellency to read these Ordinances in the way and the only way we submit in which they can be properly read and construed, we would ask him to allow as to call attention to the case referred to by Mr. Wodehonse when giving his decision and committing Loong Afu to Gaol: we mean | the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.