TNAG-2654-FCO40-3847-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 56

NOTE FOR THE RECORD

Reference.......

ра

703

SANIMAN EXTRADITION CASE

1. I telephoned M. Vincent Guitton from London on 29 September.

2.

I referred to the conversation between the Ambassador and M. Keijman, at which M. Guitton had been present, and to subsequent conversations between him and Miss Tiffin. I pointed out that the four month period for a reply to the requête gracieuse had ended on 19 September. The Ministry of Justice had not communicated any message to us. Our legal advice was that this silence constituted a negative reply. M. Guitton confirmed that this was legally the

case.

3. I went on to say that, in the light of this, the government was now taking the matter forward to the Conseil d'Etat. This was being done in a careful and reasoned way. While we recognised that there were few if any precedents for a government to refer such a matter to the Conseil d'Etat, our advice was that this was the only recourse open to us unless we wished simply to drop the matter. We were not willing to do the latter. This case was of the highest sensitivity in Hong Kong, and the British Government was concerned about it, and shared the view of the Hong Kong authorities that the argument that the decision of the Appeal Court should be overruled had simply not been rehearsed in depth. It would be possible to do this at the Conseil d'Etat.

4. M. Guitton took all this very calmly. He agreed that seizing the Conseil d'Etat was indeed the only route open to us. On a personal level, he regarded this was fair and reasonable. He said that he would take note of my telephone call, and would communicate the content of it to the Ministry of Justice.

CODE 18-77

30 September 1992

Ж

J M Macgregor

HKD 384/1

୮

DB..

LC HKD, FCO