TNAG-1825-FCO40-2592-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-Criminal-Justice-Bill-Administration-of-1988 — Page 230

Mr I Hendry

Legal Advisers

HUD 370/2

3

B

C

A

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

1. We spoke last week about the clause of the new Bill which will extend its extradition provisions to the dependent territories. I attach a copy of that clause. attached

2. I think we concluded that there might be exceptional circumstances in which the Secretary of State might wish to intervene in the colonial extradition process in place of the Governor (who would usually be the final authority). Or there might be circumstances when the Secretary of State might have to intervene. For that reason I suggested that sub-clause (3) of the attached clause should not be mandatory but permissive (ie "may" not "shall"). I so advised the Home Office, and copied my letter to Parliamentary Counsel.

3.

Counsel have now come back with a long explanation of why they think my suggestion will not work. I will discuss the point with Mr Fifoot on his return, but I wonder if you have any further thoughts on it in the light of Counsel's letter. I may say that I accept the points Counsel makes in the opening seven paragraphs. I do not think two procedures for extradition from a colony are desirable either. But what about the last four paragraphs, beginning at

the foot of page 3? If this is a "new departure", it is one we should provide for? And, if so, have you any ideas about which circumstances might need to be covered?

do you

you think

4. I am sorry to trouble you with this again, but it would be helpful to have your thoughts as a legal adviser involved with the dependent territories.

5. Mr Fifoot returns on 29 February, and we then have about 3 weeks to table our clause, which counsel

with helel

шинийня

hav

12 February 1988

CC:

Mr P Fifoot.

Iain MacLeod Legal Advisers K166 270 3066