TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 87

with as specified above is defined by section 14(3) of the Hong Kong

Order as "the period beginning with the day of his arrival in Hong Kong

and ending forty-five days after the first subsequent

on his return

day on which he has the opportunity to leave Hong Kong".

6.

It is submitted that the Specialty Assurance does not comply with

section 6(4) of the EA for the reasons given below.

7.

The term "relevant law" in Section 6(4) of the EA must mean the law

which applies to the returned fugitive at all material times since the

whole basis of the provision is to prevent a returned fugitive from

being proceeded against at any time after his return, whether before or

after trial and/or conviction. This is made wholly explicit in the

Specialty Assurance itself, wherein the period of protection is defined

(as set out in paragraph 5. above) to extend to 45 days after the first

subsequent day on which the person returned has the opportunity to leave

Hong Kong.

8.

The requirement that a Specialty Assurance is contained in "the relevant

law" has a very special significance to Hong Kong because of the return

of the territory's sovereignty to the Peoples' Republic of China ("the

PRC") as from 1st July 1997. All of Hong Kong's existing laws will

expire on 1st July 1997: the relevant law as from that date is governed

by the Basic Law recently promulgated by the PRC.

9.

The position regarding the Basic Law and its relationship to the

constitution and laws of Hong Kong is explained by the expert opinions

of Professor Yash Pal Ghai, Professor of Public Law at the University of

Hong Kong ("the Ghai Opinion"), and Professor Hungdah Chiu, Professor of