CO129-505-10 Chinese Extradition Ordinance 1927- proposed amendments 14-7-1927 - 2-11-1927 — Page 75

75

Copy.

Hon. Colonial Secretary,

1. The Consul General is evidently working on

Carrington's edition of the Ordinances, 1844-1901.

2. The definition of the term "Chinese Government"

was inserted by Ordinance No.5 of 1908, and it will interest

the Consul General to know that that Ordinance was passed

in consequence of the decision of the Full Court in Re Iu Ki

Shing (1908) 3, H.K.L.R.20. That was an application by way

of habeas corpus to question the committal by a magistrate

for surrender to China of a person charged with armed robbery

The undertaking under section 4(3) of the Ordinance was given

by the Viceroy of the two Kwongs and was accepted by the

Governor. The Full Court held that the words "Chinese

Government" in that sub-section referred to the Peking Goverment and that the sub-section was not satisfied by an undertaking by the Viceroy. As a result, the prisoner was discharged. There were other grounds for this decision, but the above ground would have been sufficient in itself. is a good illustration of the way in which the courts act

in extradition proceedings.

This

3. Extradition is a highly technical matter and the powers of the Governor, Supreme Court and magistrate rest entirely on definite statutory authority. If any step taken does not fall within the actual statutory authority, the

No prisoner can obtain his release through the courts. argument, therefore, as to what is desirable, or even as to what is reasonable, is of any avail or if the statutory

authority does not exist.

4. As the Consul General is no doubt aware, the

case is not necessarily concluded by the proceedings before

the