CONFIDENTIAL
just warrants, and the seal must be that of the Minister of Justice or a Minister of State.
In relation to paragraph (2), we suggest that it is unrealistic to expect courts to accept untranslated documents. The second sentence should be removed.
Article 12(1): this paragraph needs expansion to cater for the case of a convicted fugitive. Under the Extradition Act, we would require evidence of his conviction, and that he appears to be at large, and we would expect to have to provide this material in respect of any request which we might make.
Paragraph (2) is not wholly satisfactory. In general, we prefer nowadays to operate on the basis that the requested party informs the requesting party where and when the fugitive will be available for collection by them. I know that even some relatively recent Treaties (eg UK/Finland in 1976) have adopted the formula propsed here, but it seems right in principle that the onus is on the requesting party to comply with our proposals. In practice, of course, this is unlikely to make any significant difference either to us or to Hong Kong, and it is not a first order point.
In paragraph (3), we would need to replace "30 days" with "one month", in order to reflect the terms of our Extradition Act.
Article 13: it will be necessary for the Hong Kong authorities to submit a Letter of Request for the transfer of "articles", in order to meet the requirements of our Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990.
Article 14: it would be desirable that a new final sentence be added, along the lines of "....having left it. Nor shall he be for any other reason restricted in his personal freedom." This is a vital humanitarian safeguard, as well as a traditional component of the speciality rule.
In relation to item (b), the Extradition Act envisages that proceedings can be brought, upon return, for any other offences disclosed by the same facts, other than those in respect of which return could not lawfully have been ordered. The language of this agreement should reflect this rather wider provision.
In relation to item (c), the language is not consistent with the conditions under which the Secretary of State may consent to proceeding on additional charges. By virtue of section 6(6) of the Extradition Act, consent may not be given if it appears that an order for return could not lawfully have been made, or would not in fact have been made. It is most important that the Secretary of State's unfettered and absolute discretion to order surrender is preserved in this way.
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.