TNAG-2653-FCO40-3846-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 131

16-MHY-1992 15:48

BRITISH EMBASSY PARIS

16 1 42 66 91 42

P.13

JERMENT HOUSE HONG KONG.

MON 04 MAY 92 07:50

12

If we act it Wemang kam

vid Ma

5.

!

considered that the case should not go beyond internal examination by its services, in which case the decision of refusal was taken at

The decision of refupal was the level of thễm Minister of Justice,

notified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Lastly, the Primo Minister is the hierarchical superior of the other ministers. agreed that for practical purposee, a gracious request, if presented, should be presented at least both to the President of the Republic and the Minister of Justice and preferably also to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mme Masse and Professor Cohen emphasised again that in thell experience, all extradition matters are bucated so diplomatic matters and contacts, if any, between the foreign authorities and the French authorities are made through the diplomatic channels

embassies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris.

1.0.

Assuming the question of the capariny of the Colony of Hong Kong to take action (gracious or contentious) against the French authorities solved, the following problems were listed the solution of which would be a prerequisite to lodging a contentious recourse:

what line in Teneral the Requesting State has the capacity to challenge a decision rejecting extraosulum whilles LE DOVE? appears as a party to the administrative or judicial proceedings in France;

the status and the nature of the decision refining the extradition: essentially whether it participates in the exercise of guvwanmental auchouity in such a manner as it could be regarded, at least vis a vis the Requesting State in case of a refusal to extradite, as xa Act of Government not subject to control on the part of the administrative courts;

the extent of the control of the administrative courts and the reasons which could be raised against the decision of the French Government:

whether the control of the administrative judge would be normal control (including a control of the judge on the appropriateness opportunito") of the decision) or whether the control should be minimal (excluding any control of

- Cha flota, appropriateness and limited to mistakes as the law, action taken ultra vires or “manifest error").

to what extent the Government could make findings opposite

A discussion followed to that of the Chambre d'Accusation. in this latter respect and Professor Cohen emphasised that the reasons given on 20th March by the Ministry of Foreign

On three Affairs contain an implicit contradiction. accounts, the French authorities take the view that the reported offenses had already boon the subject of review by the Chambre d'Accusation in 1987 and could not, therefore,

But this justify extradition because of res judicata. emphasis placed on res judicata should normally have led the Government to follow strictly the advice given by the Chambre d'Accusation in 1991 (bearing in mind, however, that the decision of the Chambre d'Accusation is not a judgment and is merely su advies to the authorities),