43)
44)
45)
Paragraph 3
UK to ask for deletion of this paragraph cannot bind the Attorney General (UK made reservation to Article 12 of European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance to this effect). Attorney General would only agree to consider granting immunity from prosecution on case by case basis.
Paragraph 4
UK would wish to delete this paragraph since a court cannot be prevented from issuing a witness order (except by legislation).
Paragraph 5
UK would prefer to substitute "pursuant to the law" for "by the courts" since the drafting of this paragraph should be consistent with that of Article XII (5).
Article XVIII
46)
47)
Paragraph 1
NB This paragraph provides for a Requested Party to carry out requests for search and seizure in relation to a criminal matter. The obligation is qualified by the words "insofar as its law permits" so it is not proposed that we seek changes in this paragraph. It is proposed however that the UK explains that only requests relating to serious arrestable offences, not to all criminal matters, could be carried out, due to UK legislation. If, however, a belt and braces approach is preferred, the following new paragraph 2 could be added, based on from the UK/US MLAT, Article 14 (2):
"(2) The Requested Party is entitled to refuse a request referred to in paragraph 1 if it relates above to conduct in respect of which powers of search and seizure would not be exercisable in the territory of the Requested Party in similar circumstances.".
[Grateful for comments or alternative drafts].
Paragraph 3
UK to ask HK if they are likely to impose conditions and if so, what conditions they would wish to impose in relation to seized property.
Article XIX
48)
General Point
UK would wish to insert the words "or their value" after the reference to "proceeds of crime" in paragraphs (1) and (2) and after "proceeds" in paragraphs (3) and (4).
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.