TNAG-0408-FCO40-454-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 15

CONFIDENTIAL

they could not get the proposal through Parliament

(the Order in Council would need an affirmative

resolution by both Houses) without substantial

difficulty. I have also taken the matter up at

Under Secretary level in the Home Office (who are

responsible for extradition) but have got the same

reply. The grounds of objection are that, what-

ever we say, the Order would be interpreted as

intended to catch one man. Its retrospective

effect, which is itself open to objection, would

reinforce this impression. Second the Home Office

argue that the double criminality rule was delibe-

rately applied in 1967 to the dependent territories!

as well as independent Commonwealth countries,

because, whatever the formal position about British

control, the law to be applied in these special

cases would, ipso facto, be different from our own.

If the return of somebody like Godber was sought

for something which we do not here regard as a

crime, this would lead to outcries in this

country about the liberty of the individual.

Flowing from this, the fact that Section 10 of the

Prevention of Bribery Ordinance does cut across

fairly fundamental rules of law in this country,

is an additional reason for not changing the

Fugitive Offenders Act in the particular context

of a man charged under this section.

3.

We have put the opposite point; that it is

not a question of changing the law to catch one

but rather of the case of Mr Godber illumi-

nating an illogicality in the law which should now

/be changed

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

Page 15Page 16

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN