TNAG-1994-FCO40-2841-Hong-Kong-extradition-laws-1989 — Page 155

CONFIDENTIAL

14/031

MDLOAN 1130

ATTITUDES. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO GO FOR MORE LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW, SAY ON THE BASIS OF FRESH EVIDENCE? GRATEFUL FOR YOUR FURTHER THOUGHTS.

7:

INCIDENTALLY, WE IMAGINE THAT AS A GENERAL RULE CHINESE INTERVENTIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE IN THE NATURE OF REFUSALS TO SURRENDER THAN INSTRUCTIONS TO SURRENDER WHEN THE CE IS MINDED NOT TO DO SO. IF THAT IS RIGHT, APPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE FUGITIVE BECAUSE OF DECISIONS TAKEN FOLLOWING CHINESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. BUT WE

SUPPOSE WE CANNOT RULE OUT ALTOGETHER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE REQUESTING STATE MIGHT SEEK TO HAVE A DECISION REVIEWED.

8.

9.

PARAS 9-11: NOTED.

PARAS 12-13: WE UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS. HOWEVER, CAN THE QUESTION OF QUOTE PERVERSE CLASSIFICATION UNQUOTE REASONABLY BE ADDRESSED IN THE LEGISLATION? BEFORE REACHING A FIRM CONCLUSION, WE WOULD NEED TO SEE THE EXACT WORDING YOU ENVISAGE. 10. PARAS 14-16: WE AGREE GENERALLY. HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE POINTS WHICH WE ALREADY KNOW WILL HAVE TO BE RAISED WITH THE CHINESE, WOULD IT NOT BE BETTER TO GET THEM ALL OUT OF THE WAY AT AN EARLY STAGE RATHER THAN TACKLING THEM PIECEMEAL?

11.

PARA 17: WE AGREE GENERALLY. HOWEVER, THE POINT AT 17 (A) WILL NEED TO TAKE YOUR POINT 14(1)(B) INTO ACCOUNT.

12. PARA 18: WE HAVE SOME DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR PROPOSED APPROACH. IF THERE ARE ISSUES WHICH WE ALREADY KNOW WILL NEED TO BE REFLECTED IN AN AMENDED MODEL DRAFT AGREEMENT, SHOULD WE NOT PUT THEM TO THE CHINESE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER? IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT AREAS (SUCH AS RE-EXTRADITION) WHICH ARE ONLY PRESENTED TO THE CHINESE IN AN INITIALLED TEXT, THERE IS A RISK THAT THEY MIGHT OBJECT AND RENDER THE NEGOTIATING EFFORTS NUGATORY.

WE

13. PARA 19: ON (A), THIS WILL CLEARLY BE VERY DIFFICULT. AGREE GENERALLY, BUT WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER PRECISE WORDING. (B), WE LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING YOUR THOUGHTS.

14. PARA 20: WE ARE CONTENT.

(B) SECOND TUR:

ON

15. WE ARE GENERALLY CONTENT. IN PARA 14, WE SUGGEST THAT THE

KEY POINT IS THE QUESTION OF NEED. THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS DO

NOT SEEM RELEVANT (LEAST OF ALL QUOTE WIDE GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD UNQUOTE>.

(C) THIRD TUR:

16. YOUR PROPOSED ANNEXES A AND B SEEM TO US RATHER TOO CUMBERSOME AND DETAILED, PARTICULARLY AS FAR AS THE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CE AND THE CENTRAL AUTHORITIES ARE CONCERNED. WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING DETAILED

PAGE

2

CONFIDENTIAL