CO129-383 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 369

16373

RECS R19 MAY

UNITED STATES.

364

85

That the Treaty with the United States of the 9th August, 1842, was still in force; but that both Acts of Parliament to which reference had been made were repealed by "The Extradition Act, 1870" (33 and 34 Vict., cap. 52).

or

That "The Extradition Act, 1870," did not contain the words "territories "dominions" in that connection. That the preamble alluded to crimes committed within the jurisdiction of foreign States, and that it was stated in section 11 of the Act that it should be lawful for any person to whom a warrant was directed, &c., "to receive, hold in custody, and convey within the jurisdiction of such foreign State the criminal mentioned in the warrant." That section 25, however, of the Act ran as follows:-"For the purposes of this Act every Colony, Dependency, and constituent part of a foreign State, and every vessel of that State, shall (except where expressly mentioned as distinct in this Act) be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of, and to be part of such foreign State." That if, therefore, the words contained in the above section were held to be an exhaustive definition of the term "jurisdiction," extra- territorial jurisdiction would seem to be excluded from the operation of the Act.

That most of the Extradition Treaties concluded by this country subsequent to the passing of "The Extradition Act, 1870," were worded so as to confine their operation to the cases of crimes committed within the "territories" of one of the contracting Parties. That of such were the Treaties with Germany, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Austria-Hungary, Brazil, France, Switzerland, Spain, &c. That an exception to that rule, however, was to be found in the Treaty with the Netherlands of the 19th June, 1874, which was worded so as to include crimes committed "within the jurisdiction of the requiring party" by persons who shall be found within the territories of the other party." That that might possibly have been due to a printer's error in reprinting revises of the draft Treaty. That there was nothing in the archives of the Foreign Office to explain it.

That a question arose in 1873 as to whether the Extradition Treaties concluded by this country would apply in the case of a person who, having committed a crime in a foreign country, should seek refuge within the extra-territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain. That the point was submitted to the Law Officers, who reported, on the 1.0. R. 1878 6th June, 1873, against the surrender of such a person by the Judge of a British (Conf. 4259), Consular Court, one of the reasons given for their opinion being that the Extradition Act applied to Her Majesty's dominions and possessions only. That the point was the converse of that which had now arisen.

That the Report of the 6th June, 1873, was sent to the Home Office in connection with certain proposed amendments of the Extradition Act, which were then under consideration, and that the Secretary of State replied that it was not considered desirable to extend the Bill for amending the Extradition Act so as to place the extra- territorial jurisdiction possessed by Her Majesty in Turkey in the same position with respect to the surrender of fugitive criminals as if such jurisdiction were co-equal in extent and character with that possessed in this regard by Her Majesty in a British Colony or possession.

That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to add that no application had ever been made by Her Majesty's Government to that of the United States for the extradition from the United States' territory of a British subject who had, in some country where Her Majesty possessed extra-territorial jurisdiction, committed an offence which would have been, if done within the British dominions, an extradition offence.

That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to request that we would take the papers inclosed with his letter into our consideration, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the point more particularly submitted, and also, at the same time, with any general observations which we might have to offer in connection with the

papers.

the

Having taken the matter into our consideration, we have the honour to

Report-

That in our opinion the Extradition Treaties and "The Extradition Act of 1870 are intended to insure mutual assistance to the Contracting Parties to each Treaty for purpose of enabling them to enforce, in the cases provided for, the criminal law of their own country, and do not extend to cases where the Powers have obtained juris- diction in the dominions of another Sovereign. We are of opinion, therefore, that such a case as that of Miller-where the United States Representative called upon the British Colonial authorities to surrender a fugitive criminal to be dealt with under the

[318]

Z

p. 166 A.