Daving.
ww
trist, clearly that no Extradition Treaty is in existence between England and China, we would respectfully urge that if there is 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 Your Excellency to read these Ordinances in the and the only way we can insist in which they properly read and construed, we would ask him to allow us to call attention to the case referred to by Mr. Wodehouse when committing Kwok Afook to gaol, Attorney General the case of Hongkong v. Book a Sing, which was decided in the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of the Colony. As far as we are concerned, we would respectfully submit that the only point decided by the Privy Council in that case was that the Chinese authorities could not claim the rendition of a person they accused of piracy on the high seas (piracy jure gentium), that being an offence triable and punishable within this Colony. One other important point was raised by Mr. I. I. Francis, who was at that time the attorney for Book a Sing, that the Ordinance 2 of 1850 was a dead letter, as all treaties made previously to the passing of the Ordinance had been abrogated or superseded by the war between England and China in 1857. Mr. Francis argued that the Ordinance could not be considered to be revived or to apply to cases where rendition was claimed under the Treaty of Tientsin, negotiated after the war. The question of what was a prima facie case or "probable cause" was not raised or argued, and there is no binding judicial decision as to what was sufficient to justify the Magistrate in saying that a prima facie case had been made out, or that the words "probable cause" for believing that the said person has committed such crime or offence are the legal equivalent of the words "on proof of guilt" contained in Ordinance 2 of 1871, the latter Ordinance not affecting the decision of the Privy Council as it was passed after Mr. Francis' objection had been raised; but Lord Justice Mellish, who delivered the judgment, stated while the appeal was being argued that he had an impression that the Colony has no jurisdiction to make such a law as Ordinance 2 of 1871. As the Privy Council decided that piracy jure gentium became an Extradition crime, it became unnecessary to decide whether Ordinance 2 of 1850 was in force, and nothing is said about it in the Judgment. With reference to the Tientsin Treaty, which, as we have above pointed out, is not an Extradition Treaty between England and China in the ordinary sense of the words, we would call the attention of Your Excellency to the fact that there are two Articles, No. 21 and 23, which refer to the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the British in Hongkong over Chinese subjects, and point out these as showing that it was considered necessary in dealing with China, where extraterritoriality is in force as regards Europeans, to insert clauses which are not to be found, as far as we are aware, in Treaties in existence between civilized States. These two Articles specially provide that in case of criminal...
Daving.
ww
trist, chewn clearly that no Extradition Treaty is in existence between Eugland
and bleiwa, we would respectfully urge that if there is extradition from this botomy to blina, which is extremely doubtful, the whole of the law that
ગ્
any
ean
way Be
governs it is contamed in other two donghong ordinance above- referred to, 2 of 1850 med 2 of 1871; but before asking Di brallency to read these ordinances in the and the only way sve
embrist in which they properly read and construed, we would ask him. to allow us to call attention to the by Mr. Wodehouse when
giong committing Lorny afre to gaol,
Attorney General
the
Care
referred to his decision and
we theam
the case of
of Hongkong v. Book a ding, which was decided in the Privy Connect Supreme bont of the botony. As far
that wow
M
on
e
6
appeal from the
cti
an ao
tae
to concerned we would respectfully entrit that th arly point decided by the Irivy Cancil in that only cave was that the lehinese authorities could not clame the rendition of a preewn they accused of firacy the high pear (piracy jure gentium),
offence triable and punishable within this beolony. One other important point that raised by her. I. I. Francis who was at that time the attorney for
Book
a sing,
that the ormance 2 41850 was a dead letter, as all treaties made previously to the passing of
the Ordinance had been abrogated or fut and to by the war betwan England
betwan England and klima in 1857,
w wo
an
and the Francis argued that the Ordinance could ant be considered to be revived on to apply to the cases where reuchition claimed under the treaty of
Siento in negotiated after the
war. The question of
what
what was a prima facie ease or cance' was not raised
what
was
argued, and there
binding judicial decision as to what was
to justify the tragistrate in saying that Jucie
C
83 probable
wao
tre
enfficient prima
ease had been made out, or that the words.
acie casc
committed such crime or
offence
Their
"probable cause' for believing that the surd person has
are the legal equivalent of the words on proof of
guilt contained in Ordinance 2 of 1871, the latter Ordinance not affecting the decision of the Privy Council as it was passed after tur. Francis' objection had been raised; but Lord dustice thellish, who delivered the judgment, stated while the appeal
had an
is not
was
ut
h、}
L+
tuit
LAMA
being argued that he impression that
brown bolony has not jurisdiction to make such a law as Ordinana 2 1871. As the privy Council decided that ficracy Extradition crime, it jure gentium became munecessary to decide whether Ordmance 2 of 1850 was in force, and nothing is ouid about it in the Judgment. With reference to the Tientsin dreaty which
as we have above prointed out,
Extraction Treaty between England and bling in the Ordinary sense of the words, we would call the attenture of dise Execloney to the fact that there are two Artedes, o No. 21 and 23, which refer to the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the banks in Boughong, over Chinese Subjects, and
point tthes out as showing that it
showing that it was considered
the law of necessary in dealing with clima, women exterritorially is in force to Europeans, to insert clances which are not to be found, as far
Treaties in existence between civilized States. These
bhincoe two articles specially provide that in case of
criminal
wc
arry
to
Mo
we are avarej
in
محمد
G
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.