TNAG-1994-FCO40-2841-Hong-Kong-extradition-laws-1989 — Page 79

HOME OFFICE

Queen Anne's Gate London SW1H 9AT

Direct

145D2082384/3

Switchboard 01-273 3000

(29)

Nicholas Cannon Esq

Hong Kong Department

Foreign & Commonwealth Office

LONDON

SW1A 2AH

Your reference

Our reference

SUYAHR

NC 26/4

Date

य

April 1989

Dear Mr. Canne

Сапие

HONG KONG EXTRADITION

Thank you for your letters of 22 March and 17 April.

You asked why the phrase "any other sufficient cause" was included in Clause 10(3)(d) of the amended Commonwealth scheme [which at the time of the review in 1983 was Clause 9(3)(a)]. I have looked at the report of the 1982 Review of Commonwealth Extradition Arrangements and enclose a copy of pages 87-89 which dealt with this question. Discussion also took place at pages 37-39 and I also enclose a copy of this. You will note that the wording was changed from 'any other facts of which there is evidence' to 'any other sufficient cause'.

As to your second question about whether a person may be extradited even though the criminal offences are connected with revenue law, the general rule that states do not assist one another to enforce revenue laws may well have changesd so far as the UK is concerned as a result of the case of Regina v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard in the Queen's Bench Division on 27 May 1988 (the Nuland case). It was there held that the rule that English courts would not entertain revenue claims by a foreign state did not apply to proceedings for the extradition of someone charged with criminal offences committed in a revenue context. A copy of a report of the case from the Independent is enclosed. This was a case which was dealt with under the Extradition Act 1870 rather than the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, but we suspect that the principle would hold good. may also wish to consider the case of Re Norway's (State) Applications 1989 1 All ER 661 and 745, which has been drawn to my attention by one of our Legal Advisers. Although I have not actually seen a copy of the judgement I understand that it reaffirms the view that the important matter is whether a criminal offence has been committed, whether it is in a revenue context or not.

You