TNAG-2954-FCO40-4231-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1993 — Page 49

IFFORD CHANCE H.K. TEL:852-3-4743

Apr 27 98

20:12 10.054 P.17

CLIFFORD CHANCE

高偉紳律師行

Turning to Part II, the first section appears to depend entirely on arguments of French law, albeit that they are matters of public international law, and I think that there is little which we can say which will be of assistance to your team in Paris in dealing with those points.

With regard to section 2 of Part II an earlier treaty (the Treaty of Nanking in 1842) gave Britain. sovereignty over Hong Kong island and the Kowloon peninsular. The 1898 Treaty merely served to extend the territory subject to British sovereignty by the grant of a lease over the New Territories. Since the British Government had sovereignty over Hong Kong prior to the 1876 Treaty. The first point in this section has no validity. The second point is also based upon a misrepresentation of the wording of the Joint Declaration. This words used in that Treaty were:-

"it [the PRC] has decided to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997“

In any event, the issue is whether Hong Kong is a possession or colony of the UK for the purpose of the 1876 Extradition Treaty, and I have no doubt that the UK and France did consider Hong Kong to be a British Colony even if China did not. The argument put forward in the foot note was dealt with in the opinion sent to you on 22 October 1992.

As to section 3 of Part II, I cannot find the note dated 31 May 1990 from the British Embassy and the Government here does not have a copy. Could you ask Mr McGregor for a copy of that note and to identify the signature at the end. Hopefully, it will prove to be that of the Ambassador.

I think that the arguments advanced in section 4 of Part II have already been dealt with to some extent and that Michael Will's note provided you with the factual information which you need to respond to those points. If you think you need more comments, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Turning to the points which you raised in your fax of 21 April, I was interested in your observation regarding the speed at which things are moving and your revised opinion that we proceed to judgment.

In response to point 3 of your fax of 21 April, there are numerous extraditions both ways between Hong Kong and the United States. Further, France has made extradition requests to Hong Kong in the past. There are in fact two pending at present. I hope to revert next week with detailed statistics.

Turning to paragraph 5 of your fax of 21 April, can I refer you to the opinion which was forwarded to you on 22 October 1992 which drew attention to Article XVI of the 1876 Treaty and which provides that the Government of the Colony should make the request on behalf of the British Government. I do not have all the correspondence exchanged with Simeon but I have looked at that which I do have and it does not contain any discussion of the identity of the signatory or the form in which the request is to be presented.