TNAG-1825-FCO40-2592-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-Criminal-Justice-Bill-Administration-of-1988 — Page 156

M

You own letter about incomplete offences has also caused a good

deal of redrafting. In my letter of 21 March about international

Conventions I asked why it was that only attempts were mentioned.

You gave us the reason in your letter of 30 March that attempts

were specifically added to the extradition system by section

3(1)(c) of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, while the

other incomplete offences fall, by virtue of section 3 of the

Extradition Act 1873, to be treated as if they were substantive

offences.

Section 3 of the 1873 Act is, to our mind, more satisfactory than

the 1978 provision. It would have been better in 1978 to amend

Section 3 by inserting a reference to attempts. But a provision on the lines of section 3 will only work when there is a specific

list of extradition crimes. So now we have to spell out

expressly the proposition that we are covering not only attempts but also aiding, abetting etc.

Finally, I come to the question of repeals.

We have to deal with

extension outside the United Kingdom. We can cut down the number

of separate repeals by making substitutions at the relevant

points. The surviving repeals are therefore those where there is

no question of substitution.

JDM RENNIE

Enc.