CONFIDENTIAL
HMG's International Obligations and position in similar
circumstances
B
C
5. Our legal advisers had considered whether, if we were to
allow Hong Kong to provide this 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 our laws and whatever
conventions we have entered into.
6.
The Home Secretary is responsible for deciding what
action to take in similar circumstances here. Following the
enactment of the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990, a joint (Home Office/FCO) Central Authority has been set up in the Home Office to consider cases. The general policy is that possibility of the death penalty being carried 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 Ministers here and in the Home Office.
7. This said however, the UK itself would be unlikely to provide the information if a similar situation arose involving China or other jurisdictions which we did not have full faith it. Though these types of cases are rare,
we understand that there have been two recently. In one a
Turkish national, who was wanted for murder in the UK, was
arrested in Turkey. At that time there was no extradition agreement with Turkey and the Turkish authorities wished to prosecute him themselves: claiming jurisdiction over their
ROFATC/3
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.