TNAG-1825-FCO40-2592-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-Criminal-Justice-Bill-Administration-of-1988 — Page 135

Mr MacLeod Legal Advisers

HULD 370/2

FROM: CO Hum

13

Hong Kong Department

DATE:

5 May 1988

cc:

Mr Fifoot, Legal Advisers

27

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

1.

Thank you for your minute of 27 April. I understand that you have already received Mr Fifoot's views.

2. We share Mr Fifoot's concerns, and believe that the earlier draft (March 28) of Clause 20 should be retained. I understand that the latest version could open up doubts in connection with Article 2 of the Letters Patent. We should clearly avoid that,

54

3. The earlier draft seemed to have met our concerns adequately. I fear I do not follow the difficulties identified on page 2 of Parliamentary Counsel's letter of 15 April. While it is true that it might not be desired in certain cases that "the Governor may exercise the powers of the Secretary of State," that wording (ie that of the earlier draft) would not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising his ultimate right of issuing a direction to a Colonial Governor. As a legal layman, it does not seem to me that the problem of a clash of jurisdiction would arise.

4.

On the last query on page 2 of the letter of 15 April have not researched the history of individual cases. However, on the face of it, it seems unlikely in Hong Kong's case that an extradition request would be made to the Secretary of State rather than to the Governor. Even if it were, the Secretary of State would inevitably pass the case in question to the Governor for Hong Kong's legal apparatus to process it.

Coltun

CO Hum

Page 135Page 136