TNAG-0411-FCO40-457-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 86

under section 2(3), namely, the Fugitive

Offenders (United Kingdom Dependencies) Order 1968; the only substantive modification to the

Act effected by that Order was a proviso to section 3(1) restricting returnable offences in the New Hebrides to offences triable before a particular court. Thus the only previous exercise of the power had been in a procedural matter and one which

rather

enlarged rallies than reduced the fugitive's safe- guard. It was pointed out that any Order under section 2(3) would be scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; it was quite possible that the Order envisaged would be drawn to the attention of the House on the ground either that it appeared to make some unusual or unexpected use of the enabling power or even that there appeared to be a doubt whether it was intra vires. Home Office representatives thought that substantive legislation might therefore be required.

(c) In addition to the suggestions already put forward

by FCO, viz:-

(i) to decide that the application of the

double criminality rule to the dependent territories was illogical and abandon it altogether;

(ii) to examine the list of dependent territory

legislation to which the rule at present

applies and agree upon a schedule of returnable offences;

(iii) to attach special conditions to service

under the Crown, by which public servants should be made answerable for their acts

in all British territories;

the FCO felt that consideration could be given to the creation of a discretion of the Secretary of State to order a fugitive's return in any particular case in circumstances not at present allowed under the provisions of the 1967 Act. It was pointed out, however, that this idea had been considered and

3