TNAG-2901-FCO40-4175-Extradition-agreements-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-after-19-1993 — Page 134

J

L

لو

5. Brooks, Legal

Advises

CE Garrett

Hong Kong Department

FCO

King Charles Street

London SW1A ZAH

8th December 1993

3709

RECE

C9 DEC 1993

37079

ATA

CPS

Headquarters

50 Ludgate Hi London EC4M 7EX

Switchboard: 071-273 8000

DX No: 300850 Ludgate EC4

deary.

71

iake..

på

Facsimile: 071-

329 8165

De

Direct Line: 071- |

273 1236

13/12

Our Reference:

Your Reference:

L

Dear Mr Garrett

RE: AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UK AND HONG KONG AFTER 1997

(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.

2.

3.

A

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?

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