60
staff of the German Ambassy.
Sherman J. decided against
him and he appealed. The Attorney General attended and made
a statement on behalf of the Foreign Office in support of the
defendant's claim. The Court of Appeal (Scrutton and Jargant
L.JJ., Lord ilanworth M.R. dissenting) dismissed the appeal.
scrutton L.J., in delivering judgement, said that he
#
was not
"at all satisfied that the procedure was admissible, still less
"that it was conclusive. In certain matters, as the status of
"sovereigns and ambassadors, the Courts were accustomed to seek
"information from the Secretaries of State as representing the
"King and to accept a definite answer as conclusive, but he,
was not disposed to enlarge the class of cases coming within
"the rule of practice. The Crown knew whom they had recog-
"nized as independent sovereigns and as ambassadors. But the
"Foreign Office had no knowledge of the internal arrangement s
"of an embassy; as, for instance whether a particular person
"was a chorister, or a cook, or what exact work he did". It
might therefore be necessary to call oral evidence, both as to
the constitution of the Canton Government, and on the recogni-
tion point. Fresumably the Consul General would give evi-
dence on the latter point, as in the Hung Shiu Lun case, which,
by the way, we now know to have been a bogus accusation made
for political reasons.
4.
I do not think that we have ever entirely dismis
ed from our minds the possibility of attempting to resume
extradition under the present law, but I think that we should
await for the present the result of the recent representations
to the Secretary of State as to the amendment of the law.
ad. J.H. Kemp.
Attorney Jeneral.
26th August, 1927.
Page 60Page 61
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.