TNAG-1825-FCO40-2592-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-Criminal-Justice-Bill-Administration-of-1988 — Page 154

2

which has stimulated the present revision. But we have also

taken account of the first portion of your letter of 30 March, in

which you explained the position of incomplete offences in the

law of extradition. I am sending copies of this letter and of

the drafts to MacLeod, as well as to Kowalski and Erskine.

The

The clause about the Colonies stands apart from the other

material in this batch. I am sorry to return to a provision

which we had all hoped was settled. But we remain uneasy.

best way to air our doubts seemed to be to send you a slightly

revised draft. There are no changes except in subsections (3)

and (4). They represent subsection (3) of the previous version,

which we last sent to you on 28 March. That attempted to take

account of comments contained in a letter of 8 March from

MacLeod, to which I replied on 9 March.

The difficulty which we now feel is that subsection (3) of the

draft of 9 March left matters (on the face of it) somewhat in the

air. It said that "the Governor may exercise the powers of the

Secretary of State". But a further reading of MacLeod's letter

of 8 March suggests that this is something that might not be

desired in certain cases. We are conscious that it may be felt

that a reference to Instructions on the face of the clause is

undesirable. But without it are there risks of a clash of

jurisdiction between a Governor and the Secretary of State?

Furthermore, though an extradition request may be made to the

Governor, is a request to the Secretary of State permissible as

:

an alternative?