TNAG-1216-FCO40-1519-Extradition-treaties-between-Hong-Kong-and-other-countries-1982 — Page 42

SS

MEETING TO REVIEW COMMONWEALTII EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS MARLBOROUGH HOUSE LONDON 22-26 NOVEMBER 1982

THE COMMONWEALTH SCHEME

1. The Scheme (copy appended) was prepared after discussion between

Commonwealth Law Ministers in September 1965 and April/May 1966.

It was

concluded that Commonwealth extradition arrangements should be based on

reciprocity and substantially uniform legislation incorporating certain

features commonly found in extradition treaties, eg a list of returnable

offences, the establishment of a prima facie case before return, and

restrictions on return of political offenders. It was not a formal agreement,

but a statement of principles, although it was the intention of the Ministers

that those principles should be annunciated with sufficient clarity and

precision to obviate differences of interpretation.

2. The Scheme was prepared in recognition of the fact that the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 had been rendered outdated through the development of independent States within the Commonwealth. The 1881 Act had provided for

the return of fugitive offenders between various parts of a widely dispersed

colonial empire and certain features commonly found in extradition treaties

were absent from it, eg a list of returnable offences and restrictions on the

return of political offenders.

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT 1967

3. The 1967 Act

is based on the Scheme and under it any

fugitive offender sought by a designated Commonwealth country who is found in the United Kingdom may, subject to the provisions of the Act, be returned to

that country. A Commonwealth country can be designated under section 2 of

the Act.

PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH THE SCHEME AND THE 1967 ACT

4. In general we have found that within the limitations imposed by the Scheme and the difficulties inherent in all extradition arrangements, in

particular the need to satisfy the requirements of other systems of law and procedure, the arrangements have worked well. Because we share a common heritage of law the requirements of our Act for the establishment of a prima

facie case and on admissibility of evidence do not present the same

difficulties to requesting States as do the equivalent provisions under the Extradition Act 1870 for foreign States. Tables showing cases since 1967

are annexed.

1