TNAG-1825-FCO40-2592-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-Criminal-Justice-Bill-Administration-of-1988 — Page 215

2

We have now realised that, although these attempted repeals of

enactments supplementing the Extradition Acts were misguided, we

ought not to have dropped all reference to the Acts in question.

The reason why last session's repeals were wrong is that

extradition depends on treaties. On the other hand the Fugitive

Offenders Act 1967 does not so depend. The new section 3 for the

1967 Act inserted by paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill makes

Schedule 1 to the Act superfluous. It is therefore repealed in

our Schedule 14. But if that repeal is right, it must follow

that anything concerned with that Schedule also should go. We

therefore need to repeal enactments amending the Schedule and

provisions applying amendments of the Schedule to the Channel

Islands etc. I enclose draft amendments. I am sorry that the

· last of them leaves a slight grammatical awkwardness in the

Aviation Security Act, where we shall still have "Acts" in the

plural. But this is not particularly uncommon, and there seems

to be no need to remove itur primitus aufwardness caused by

the second amendssent

Part II of Schedule 13 to last session's Bill repealed section 33

of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Misuse of Drugs Act does

not feature in these present draft amendments because section 33

is only about extradition. We do not know why this is the one

case where the Fugitive Offenders Act was not brought in. But

since the test of whether an offence falls within the 1967 Act

will now be the length of the maximum sentence, offences under

the 1901 Act will now apparently be "relevant offences", just as

they have always been extradition crimes, We take it that this

is a deliberate piece of policy.