TNAG-1994-FCO40-2841-Hong-Kong-extradition-laws-1989 — Page 15

and would wish to reiterate their view that there might be value in considering the possibility of adopting the probable cause approach when the, time came to consider the nature of future bilateral extradition relations. The US side had underlined their concerns about the potential for involvement of the ECHR in matters which should properly be the prerogative of bilateral relations. The problems which arose concerned matters of both principle and practice. The US side would regard it as of very considerable importance that the UK should resist appeals by the Commission for stays of extradition in cases which might reasonably be regarded as frivolous. The US side would look forward to receiving a response from the UK side on the issue of speciality. It seemed unlikely that the MLAT talks which were to take place later in the week would result in the finalisation of a Treaty, and if further talks on an MLAT were indeed necessary it would probably be valuable if a day or two were to be set aside on that occasion for further discussions on extradition. (Note: it was subsequently agreed that further MLAT talks should take place in London in the week beginning 12 March 1990, and that the first couple of days in the following week should be used for discussions on extradition.)

Action

22. (i) UK to clarify with Ministers the policy

position on extradition in cases involving capital punishment, and confirm the position in writing to the US side (paragraph 9);

(ii) Subject to the progress of current investigations, UK to prepare a document assessing the implications of the "Guildford Four" case, with a view to making such a document available to US courts hearing extradition cases (paragraph 13);

(iii) UK to consider developing arrangements for transfer to the UK from 1997 onwards of prisoners extradited to Hong Kong before that date (paragraph 14);

(iv) UK to consider as a matter of priority whether a solution to the problem of speciality in respect of extradition to the US can be found (paragraph 21).

C7 Division

November 1989

Page 15Page 16