TNAG-2285-FCO40-3286-Cooperation-between-Hong-Kong-and-China-on-criminal-matters-1991 — Page 34

CONFIDENTIAL

C

D

personally consider whether they see any political or security objection to the giving of assistance.

HMG's International Obligations and position in similar

circumstances

5.

Our legal advisers have considered, if we were to allow Hong Kong to provide these kinds of assistance and

information, whether we would be in breach of any international legal obligations. Their conclusion is that

if the assistance provided is strictly limited in the way

described by Hong Kong, it is unlikely to result in breaches

of international legal obligations by the UK. It should be

noted that there is an important difference between the

handing over of evidence and the extradition of a suspect to a country. In the latter case the person is, obviously,

within our jurisdiction and protected by the UK's

international human rights commitments.

6. The Home Secretary is responsible for deciding what

action to take in similar circumstances here. Following the

implementation of the Criminal Justice (International

Cooperation) Act 1990, a Central Authority, with an FCO

secondee, has been set up in the Home Office to consider requests for mutual legal assistance. The general policy

of The Home Office is that the possibility of the death

penalty being carried out should not act as an automatic bar

on the provision of evidence. But such cases and any other

reasons for political sensitivity would be referred to

Home Office Ministers and to the FCO.

7.

The UK itself would be unlikely to provide the assistance or information requested if the request came from China or an other country in whose legal system we did not

have full confidence. If such a prosecution were to take

place in, say, the US however, our attitude would probably

ROFATC/3

CONFIDENTIAL