CONFIDENTIAL
Paragraph (3) Mrs Evans found this unacceptable - we cannot bind the Attorney General, and the UK entered a reservation to Article 12 of the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance to this effect. The Attorney General would only agree to consider granting immunity from prosecution on a by case basis. We would want this provision deleted.
-
Paragraph (4) Mr Sonnenberg asked how without legislation a court could be prevented from making a witness order. We would want this provision deleted.
-
Paragraph (5) Miss Brooks and Mrs Evans wished this to be consistent with the drafting of XII(5), and therefore suggested replacing "by the courts" in line 3 with "pursuant to the law".
At the negotiations
Paragraph (1)
Negotiate replacement of "Articles XV and XVI"
in line 2 with "this agreement"
Negotiate omission of "or civil matter" from line 4, and ask HK for clarification of their intention here.
Negotiate addition of "while he is in the territory of the Requested Party whilst giving assistance under this agreement" to the end of line 5.
Paragraph (3)
Paragraph (4)
-
Negotiate the deletion of this provision.
Negotiate the deletion of this provision.
Paragraph (5) Negotiate the substitution of "pursuant to the
law" for "by the courts".
11. Article XVIII
cf. Article 14 of US and Caymans MLATS also on search and seizure.
Paragraph (1) Mrs Evans noted that here the Requested Party will help in "any criminal matter", whereas Section 7 of the 1990 Act refers only to serious/arrestable offences. Mr Sonnenberg thought this might be covered by the limitations on competence in Article IV (h), but Mrs Evans did not agree. We need to look at Article IV (h) again. Mr Sonnenberg would like
para 2, ie stating that
grounds for refusal detailed in a new if we could not search and seize in a UK case, we would not be able to do it for HK. This could be modelled on US MLAT Article 14 (2).
Paragraph (3) Mrs Evans would like to discuss with the HK
CONFIDENTIAL
6
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.