TNAG-1129-FCO40-1408-Extradition-arrangements-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1982 — Page 9

RESTRICTED

1

C

A

E

ດາ

4.

(i)

(ii)

our evidential requirements generally prevent our Courts from obtaining any benefit from such

an arrangement;

there was no possibility of UK Courts taking evidence under compulsory process in relation to conduct which constituted no offence here;

(iii) we could not agree to the compulsory production

of witnesses to appear in proceedings in the requesting State.

Subsequently the Department of Trade drew attention

to their reservations, from the aspect of our commercial interests, about US enquiries in the UK where criminal evidence is involved. This stems from attempts by the US administration and independent law enforcement agencies to enforce US law extra-territorially both in the UK and on the activities of UK companies in third markets.

As a result the Protection of Trade Interests Act 1980 was passed, Sections 1 and 2 of which particularly refer.

5. In October 1980 the State Department provided a draft Treaty. This proposal was considered at a meeting between Mr J Linneman and Mr Ridley on 23 October and as a result the Home Office provided on 26 November a detailed statement of the difficulties that a treaty based on the US draft would present for us. Subsequent action concentrated on the narcotics problem, and as a consequence we are in the final stages of formally considering an Exchange of Notes which will assist the US Coastguard to conbat seaborne drug smuggling in the Caribbean. The present request for discussions on a general treaty is the first US initiative on, the subject since November last year.

6.

Requests by the US for evidence to be taken in the UK were one criminal in 1979; two civil and one criminal

RESTRICTED

/in

RESTRICTED

in 1980 and two criminal and one civil in 1981. No

difficulties were experienced in these cases. Requests

in civil cases come from US Lawyers to Legal Procedures

Section and are transmitted to the High Court.

Requests in criminal cases emanate from the US Embassy and are transmitted by Legal Procedures Section to the

Home Office or NIO etc who pass them on to the appropriate

Court. A principal difficulty experienced by the

Americans is that an order for the execution of a Letter

of Request may only be issued if the matter has passed the stage of preliminary enquiries and judicial proceedings

have begun. This may cause difficulties in obtaining

evidence for use before Grand Juries.

F

Line to Take

7. We should refer to the previous discussions and

express willingness to consider specific problems arising out of present procedures. Perhaps the US authorities could like to send us a paper describing them.

II Problems over assistance in obtaining evidence

from the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong and Bermuda

8.

No requests for evidence from these 3 territories have

passed through Legal Procedures Section of NTD in the last

3 years.

Applications are therefore no doubt going direct. since the territories have separate jurisdiction. We do not therefore know what the difficulties are but we suspect that they may result from requests for evidence which is precluded by local legislation eg the Cayman Islands Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law 1976 (extract at flag F) or made subject to restriction by order of the local court.

9. In the case of Bermuda, requests for information from the Bermuda Police from the FBI are received by the FCO via the Legal Attaché of the US Embassy. The FBI have commented on the value of the cooperation provided.

RESTRICTED

/Line