CO129-505-10 Chinese Extradition Ordinance 1927- proposed amendments 14-7-1927 - 2-11-1927 — Page 40

40

4.

Reference to section 4 of the Deportation

Ordinance No.25 of 1917 shows that the crucial factors in

proceedings under that Ordinance are the examination at

the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs (sub-section (6) ), the report of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs to the Governor

in Council (sub-section (8) ) and the consideration of that report by the Governor in Council (sub-section (11) ). Owing to the flight of Lau Lun, who jumped his bail, the

case never came before the Governor in Council; but the Secretary for Chinese Affairs' report was as follows:-

"The "crimes" of which Lau Lun is accused

leading

"bands some hundreds strong to rob and burn villages

11

-

are not of a nature to which he is at all likely

"to revert in Hong Kong. He is clearly not the

footpad or the "armed robber" so familiar to us

"here. The whole of the evidence shows that the

"demand for his deportation is a political affair, "and an effort to use the deportation Ordinance for "the purpose of extradition. Remembering the Hung

Shiu Lun case, I feel confident that extradition

"would not be granted, even if the machinery for it "was in order. My opinion is that it is not a case

for the use of the deportation Ordinance."

5.

Under such circumstances there could be no

reason why the Secretary for Chinese Affairs should have

refused his consent (see sub-section (10)) to the

liberation of Lau Lun on what was a very heavy bail and

with special conditions that he should report to Police

Headquarters every alternate day. The recourse to the

Magistrate provided. by sub-section (10) is granted purely

in

Page 40Page 41