TNAG-2485-FCO40-3616-Capital-punishment-in-Hong-Kong-1992 — Page 73

CONFIDENTIAL

Blue Volume XXXX19)

XCX(92)12

(c)

(d)

HMG does not extradite people from the U.K. without a firm assurance that the death penalty will not be carried out. However, HMG accepted in the Gan case that our circumstances here are different and did not object; and

if we abolish the death penalty in Hong Kong, can we at the same time reasonably adopt the policy of surrendering people to face the death penalty elsewhere? Local enabling legislation will be required to allow us to implement extradition agreements. Legislative Council Members could well object to the apparent contradiction and might also raise fears about setting a rendition precedent. The latter would be very unhelpful.

CONCLUSION

12

Due to the close proximity of the territory to China, the number of fugitive offenders from the mainland seeking refuge in Hong Kong is likely to exceed the number from other countries. It will be important to ensure that nothing is done to undermine our chance of securing a future rendition arrangement with China on satisfactory terms, including the death penalty safeguard. We therefore conclude that, on balance, if the price of bilateral extradition agreements with Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand is that we give way on the death penalty provision, the price is too high to pay.

ATTENDANCE

Mr. A. P. Asprey

Mr. D.M. Edwards

Secretary for Security

Law Officer (International Law)

17 February 1992

(SCR 1/2716/80 Pt. 19)

COUNCIL CHAMBER

Executive Council