TNAG-1586-FCO40-2160-Hong-Kong-extradition-application-of-UK-extradition-treatie-1986 — Page 211

REFORM OF EXTRADITION LAW.

PROPOSALS RELATING TO EVIDENCE AND EXTRATERRITORIALITY.

1.

It is not the requirement of evidence that brings the system into disrepute; it is the form in which it is required and the extent to which its content is admitted.

In the experience of the Director of Public Prosecutions a high proportion of

of the difficulties would disappear if our law took greater account of the form in which evidence may be received (Report of the Working Party of the Home Office, 1982, Ch.5 para.6).

It is significant that no complaint is made about the existence or operation of the rule in relation to the Commonwealth under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. In fact, the Commonwealth Law Ministers in 1983 expressly determined to retain it).

It is proposed that the rule should be retained by the United States; see Extradition Act 1982, 18 USC 3194 (d) (1) (B), Apparently this is to comply with the requirements of the 4th Amendment.

2.

The problem is the extent to which we can alter the law so as to;

(1)

(2)

simplify the rules relating to authentication

change the rules of evidence to accommodate European States which have different investigatory processes and less stringent rules of evidence,