TNAG-2879-FCO40-4151-Agreements-between-the-Hong-Kong-Special-Administrative-Regi-1993 — Page 130

Our reference:

Your reference:

Mr T P N Livesey

Economic Relations Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office LONDON SW1H 2AH

Dear Mr Livesey,

CONFIDENTIAL

HOME OFFICE

Queen Anne's Gate London SW1H 9AT

Direct line: 071-273- Switchboard: 071-273-3000

3923

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UK AND HONG KONG AFTER 1997

1 July 1993

You have spoken to Geoffrey Sonnenberg here about Mr Rickett's note of 4 June, and I am writing to record our views.

As Geoffrey explained, we would not usually want a bilateral MLAT, although we would consider entering into such an arrangement if this was eg1 necessary to enable the partner country to comply with domestic legislation. But in the particular case of Hong Kong after 1997 there might possibly be presentational advantage in an MLAT with what would be a former Commonwealth territory in a part of the world, South East Asia, where we have interests in eg combatting drug trafficking. Our line might be that the MLAT should not be viewed as a precedent, but as a special case for orderly transitional purposes. We could nonetheless go on to say that even though Hong Kong's criminal law and practice are not on all fours with ours, they provide the successor administration with a firm basis for entering into a binding agreement with us. Arguably, this would strengthen our case for saying that a number of remaining Commonwealth countries, having much the same law and practice as Hong Kong, could reasonably be expected to give more urgent consideration than now seems to be the case to participating in the Commonwealth Scheme. We might even be able, by pointing to solid co-operation with what would be a part of China, to persuade other non-Commonwealth countries in that part of the world to do more to help us, even without the need for an MLAT.

536.cm

CONFIDENTIAL

1