TNAG-2580-FCO40-3768-Extradition-agreements-between-Hong-Kong-and-Australia-1992 — Page 109

G.F. 324

RESTRICTED 內部文件

Report on Extradition Negotiations between Hong Kong and

Australia conducted in Canberra on 23-28 January 1992

Australian Delegation

Dianne Stafford

George Kriz Karen O'Rourke Stephen Gee

James Baxter

Attorney General's Department Attorney General's Department Attorney General's Department Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Hong Kong Delegation

D.M. Edwards J.M. Hunter

A.A. Bruce

A. Sinclair

International Law Division International Law Division Prosecutions Division Security Branch

Preamble

The Australians had provided a document which showed our model together with their proposed alternative wording. We explained that the words "extradition" and "treaty" were unacceptable to the Chinese because they carried implications of sovereign status.

The Australians had no difficulty with "surrender" but could not accept "fugitive offender" because of an unreported case (Mackness) in which it had been held that an offender who came to Australia on holiday was not a fugitive. We settled on "accused and convicted persons". We agreed it was not necessary to define "the Parties".

Obligation to Surrender

2.

To avoid the ambiguous use of "jurisdiction" in our model, we offered the alternative formulation in our brief. Article 1 is now almost identical to Article 1 of the Hong Kong/Canada agreement.

Offences

3.

The to

The Australians reluctantly accepted a list approach. alterations were made to achieve a more generic approach and ensure that all serious criminal offences created by State law were covered. We did not accept an Australian proposal to include offences against the laws relating to racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred on the grounds that Hong Kong has no such laws. Article 2(2) is the same as our model. Article 2(3)-(4) follow our agreement with Canada.

RESTRICTED #