be reluctant to give such advice in view of their need to keep open the possible application of "nationwide" laws. The most that we could probably expect from the Chinese, or could give ourselves, would be a reaffirmation of the one country two systems principle and the existence of separate judicial and legal systems.
5. As to (c), we will have to consider and put in train, both as regards Hong Kong and the PRC, negotiations to establish the terms on which offenders will be returned to the SAR or the mainland after 1997 (see the replies of Mr Renton, Mr Eggar and Mr Patten's PQS on 14 May, 2 July and 16 July 1987) and possibly the continuance of the safeguards existing as regards persons returned to Hong Kong before I do not
The latter, however, would be breaking new ground.
recall that we have contemplated such a step in the past.
6. A particular factor which we must not lose sight of, either in our response to Lord Winchelsea or more generally, is that the pro- visions presently applicable in Hong Kong as regards the restric- tions on prosecution of persons returned to Hong Kong whether from this country or third countries are contained in an applied law
(section 19 of the Extradition Act 1870 and sections 14 and 15 of the Fugitive Offenders' Act 1967). These provisions will lapse in 1997 and therefore need to be localised. In making new arrange- ments with the PRC after 1997, we will need to cover both the SAR and the mainland and we should seek to ensure that the relevant safeguards are equally applicable to the treatment of the returned offenders in the mainland as they are in the SAR.
of
Paul Fifoot Legal Advisers
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.