TNAG-1825-FCO40-2592-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-Criminal-Justice-Bill-Administration-of-1988 — Page 237

1

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

London SW1A 2AH

ний HUD 370/5

Telephone 01- 270 3066

DJ Bentley Esq

Legal Adviser's Branch

Home Office

Queen Anne's Gate

LONDON

Your reference

Our reference

Date

5 February 1988

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

:

EXTRADITION

1. I thought I should confirm in Criminal Justice Bill which I gave

2. Rennie's letter of 2 February

iting the comments on the eter Wright yesterday.

I agree with Rennie that the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 have so far ignored the application of the Act to the dependencies of the UK. I therefore, agree with the modification to Schedule 1, paragraph 4 of the Bill.

3. I think there can be extra-territorial offences against the law of a dependency. An example would be an offence under the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 as applied to the colonies by S.I. 1984/2019. My understanding is that the effect of applying section 4 of the 1978 Act to a dependent territory would be to create in the law

The problem of the territory an extra-territorial jurisdiction. reflected in S2 (1) of the Australia Act 1986 is not, strictly, relevant: the offence in the example I cited is not created by the dependent territory's legislature, but by Parliament.

4. I have not been able to find examples of a dependency basing its jurisdiction on nationality. There is, however, learning which suggests that such a jurisdiction could be assumed, perhaps in cases similar to those in which the UK takes jurisdiction on the basis of nationality. The view of colleagues here, which I share, is that the possibility of a dependency assuming such a jurisdiction should be catered for in the Bill, and so the amendment to Schedule 1 page 106 line 13, should remain.

5.

6.

I think the first new clause works.

I am not, however, happy with the amendment to sub-section 3 of the second new clause. We here think there could be circumstances in which the Secretary of State might wish, or might have to, exercise his powers under the Bill in a dependent territory. therefore prefer that the possibility should be left open. latest version of sub-section 3 would not appear to do this.

We would

The

/Accordingly,