TNAG-0377-FCO40-423-Defence-and-Oversea-Policy-Committee-review-of-UK-relations--1973 — Page 43

an offence for a public servant to be in control of

resources which he cannot explain.

This provision is

needed in Hong Kong where it is very difficult to

get evidence of actual corruption. But there is no

parallel offence in this country. The Fugitive

Offenders Act 1967 introduced for the first time in its

application to the Dependent Territories, the so-called

"double criminality rule", under which an offender

can only be returned if the offence of which he is

accused is known to the law of both countries.

15. We have consulted the Law Officers, the Home

Office and the Whips and have concluded that a

retrospective amendment of this rule to catch Godber

has no chance of being approved by Parliament.

the Governor has urged that before announcing this

we should consider non-retrospective amendment on

general grounds. This could be done by Order-in-

Council. The question is of substantial interest in

Hong Kong. It is widely believed, against all the

facts, that the European Godber is being protected

by the European Government in the UK.

But

16. The argument for retaining the double criminality

rule is that the Home Secretary would be open to

criticism if he authorised the return of a man accused

of something which we do not in this country regard

as a crime. Against this, we approve the laws of the

Dependent Territories. It is not strictly logical

for us to frustrate their operation. The provision is

also discriminatory in its effect, since if Godber

had been a Hong Kong belonger we would not have had to

accept him. Finally the power of return is largely a

/doterrent,