CO129-535-3 Nguyen ai Quoc- request for extradition to Indo-China by French authorities 29-6-1931 - 26-1-1932 — Page 66

The

J

65

CASE OF POLITICAL China

REFUGEES

COLONIAL GOVERNMENT'S

POSITION

Mail

24-8-31

NO POWER TO DEPORT

IMPERIAL LAW WHICH DOES

NOT APPLY

HERE?

Submissions that there was no power vested in the Hong Kong Legislature, or that of any other Colony, to order the deportation of political offenders, and that in fact the Legislature was expressly forbidden to enact any Ordinance to that effect, were made by Mr. F. C. Jenkin, appearing on behalf of an Annamite who is apply- ing for an order nisi in a writ of habeas corpus, before the Full Court this morning.

Mr. Jenkin contended that the provisions of the Extradition Act of 1870 held good here. There was no variation by reason of an Imperial Act of 1914, known as the Aliens' Restriction Act. That Act was still in effect in existence, but was not at any time meant to apply to the Colonies. It was an Act passed at a time of grave national emergency.

Counsel's further submission was that the second Deporta- tion Order in the present case, served on August 15, was bad, in that the Executive had exhausted its authority in this direction by the issue of the first Order.

Various points, termed "political" and "non-political" were made by Mr. Jenkin in the summary of his legal argument, and noted by Their Lordships.

PLEA

FOR

FREEDOM

The Attorney-General, at the legal argument, Mr. Jenkin, for outset, dealt with two points, on applicant, asked that the appli- the existence of the Deportation | cation be amended, in view of the Orders, and the second as to ser- transfer of prisoner's body to the vice of them. The whole case Police. He asked for the substi- had been argued on the basis of tution of the name of the Captain the existence of the first order, Superintendent of Police, in place he said. When that first order of Mr. J. W. Franks (Superin- was made the applicants were tendent of Prisons). moved under its provisions, from Victoria Jail to Police custody.

After some discussion, the Chief Justice said that he thought two issues arose out of that. One would be that the present was an argument on the existing order nisi. The other constitut-

Mr. Alabaster then referred to affirmations made by Sung Man- cho, the applicant, on August 14. He had stated that he had been sworn at Central Police Station.ed an application for a new order The whole matter had now been carried further by the addition to the file of affidavits of service of an Order made and served

nisi, addressed to the Captain He Superintendent of Police. suggested that hearing be con- on tinued on that assumption.

agreed, comment-

August 15. The Crown's case Mr. Jenkin

was that the applicant was nowing that it was merely a matter held under that order.

Matter of Procedure, Before proceeding with his

of procedure.

(Continued on Page 12.)