TNAG-2880-FCO40-4152-Agreements-between-the-Hong-Kong-Special-Administrative-Regi-1993 — Page 86

کو

5. Brooks, Legal Advises

alız.

RECE!

CE Garrett

Hong Kong Department

FCO

King Charles Street

London SW1A ZAH

L

8th December 1993

Dear Mr Garrett

INDEX

370/9

09 DEC 1993

L

ך

+37079

RY

ATA

CPS

Headquarters

90

50 Ludgate Hill London EC4M 7EX

Switchboard: 071-273 8000

DX No: 300850 Ludgate EC4

ISTRY on Taker

Facsimile: 071-

329 8165

Direct Line: 071-

273 1236

Our Reference:

Your Reference:

Je

10/12

Goodwin, NTCD Grans, Ho

но

но

Rutherford, Dictison, Legal Advisers

RE : AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UK AND HONG KONG AFTER 1997 :S FO

(75)

I apologise for my delay in replying to your letter of the 30th November, but as I was not on the original circulation list, I did not receive it until the 7th December.

I would echo the concerns of the Crown Office, namely that the list of offences approach has been adopted.

I would also make the following specific comments:-

1.

نه

Article 2 - The list of offences restricting the operation of the 12 month plus, imprisonment test, should be replaced with the unfettered definition in section 2 (1)(a) of the 1989 Act. If the list system is insisted on, additional crimes will have to be considered, eg. Child Abduction. Consideration will have to be given to the possibility of some satisfactory "catch all" provision.

Article 7 (3) - Is a prima facie case really necessary? Should not the provisions of the European Convention on Extradition be considered?

3. Article 8 (3) - What does "If the requesting party can justify continued provisional arrest" mean? Surely two stage time limits are an unnecessary complication? The time limit should be a clear 60 days "as in the US Treaty Clause" - particularly if a prima facie case is required.

Crown Prosecution Service · Working in the interests of justice