-3-
33
on the 19th January the police meeting the s.s. "Ho Sang"
from that port observed Nguyen about to land and arrested
him.
4. Nguyen's solicitors at once protested that the
action of the police was in breach of the undertaking not
to exercise surveillance over Nguyen's movements outside the
Colony and further had defeated careful plans for covering
the deportee's tracks and was contrary to the Hong Kong Government's responsibility, for "using the best endeavours
to secure that the appellant should reach the place to
which he desired to go" without exposing him to the danger of
arrest by the French Authorities.
5. I do not agree that the facts support any such
view but was advised that in the circumstances it might be better to ignore Nguyen's technical breach of the deportation
order and to set him at liberty with a view to making a
further attempt to get away unnoticed towards his desired
destination which was declared to be Vladivostok.
Accordingly with considerable reluctance I directed the
police to release their prisoner and this was done the
same night (19th January). At the same time the solicitors
were informed that the law would only hold its hand for
a further three days. This they claimed was quite
inadequate for their object, namely, a secret departure
northwards and I was considering some further latitude
when they decided to take no further responsibility for
Nguyen's safety and informed the Government that he would
be leaving by the s.s. "Anhui" at 5 p.m. on the 22nd
January and called upon me to implement the undertaking
given on behalf of this Government at the settlement of the
·
appeal
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.