CO129-477 - Public Offices - 1922 — Page 405

!

404

Hong Kong in Article 66 comes with-

in (a) or (b) supra. If within

(a), Hong Kong is bound to receive

the prisoner under section 7 of

the Act; if within (b), the

further question arises whether

the words "the Government whereof

consents etc." qualify "Hong Kong"

as well as "some other part of His

Majesty's Dominions",

I think on the whole that

(b) applies and that it is very

doubtful whether the words "the

Government whereof etc." qualify

"Hong Kong"

-

i.e. that the in-

tention of the Article is that

Hong Kong is bound to receive a

prisoner.

But it by no means

follows that Hong Kong ought to

pay and we now come to the question

of expense of removal and

maintenance.

Both the Foreign Jurisdiction

Act and the China order are silent

on this point.

It is however

manifest that the government of

another part of His Majesty's

Dominione would not ordinarily

X

* Vide intra KA

consent to receive a prisoner

unless the removing authority paid

all expenses and I do not see why

Hong Kong (assuming that the

Colony is bound to receive the

prisoner, as suggested above)

should be in any worse position

in

to the 1859

Circular

23A

(

in this matter.

We may perhaps be able to

throw some light on the point from

our own practice.

1.

There is the Circular

of 16th April, 1889, as to British

Colonial subjects convicted by

British Courts exercising jurisdiction

out of His Majesty's Dominions under

the Foreign Jurisdiction Act.

According to this

Circular if a prisoner were removed

from China to Hong Kong under Article

66 Hong Kong would not be liable

unless the man were a native of or

ordinarily resident within the Colony.

This Circular evidently relates

mainly if not entirely to British

Courts in foreign countries and

appears to have resulted from

discussion with the Foreign office and

possibly the Treasury as it gives the

AL

decision of Her Majesty's Government

and is concerned with freeing the

Imperial Government from liability

in such cases.

According to its principle

in the present case India ought to

pay whether the man is sent to Hong

Kong or to India. Whether the

J

Government of India would accept the

ruling of the Circular I do not know.

2. We have an analogous

provision to Article 66 of the China

Order