THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 30TH OCTOBER, 1897.
(ii) Translations in English of such depositions, if certified by such British Consul or Deputy to be correct translations, may accompany the certified copy of the depositions, and in such case such translations may be received in evidence in the same manner as the originals;
(iii.) Any copies of depositions received in evidence or, if necessary, a translation thereof, shall be read over to the fugitive criminal if he so desire, and he shalf be asked if he has any valid cause to show why he should not be committed to Gaol to await the order of the Governor ;
(iv.) The burden of proof that a fugitive criminal has resided in this Colony more than six months sball lie upon such fugitive criminal;
(v.) In every case proof of the identity of the fugitive criminal must be given to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.
The Magistrate shall receive any evidence which may be tendered to show that the crime, of which the prisoner is accused, is an offence of a political character, or is not au extradition crime.
Objects and Reasons.
By section 14 of The Extradition Act, 1870, and section 4 of The Extradition Act, 1873, depositious, statements ou oath and affirmations, taken in a foreign State, and copies of such original depositions, statements or affirmations may, if duly authenticated, be received in evidence in proceedings under those Acts. This is so even when such depositions are taken in the absence of the accused and without his having had the opportunity of cross-examination. See Exparte Counhaye L. R. 8 Q. B. 410. Hitherto the prac- tice, in this Colony, under The Chinese Extradition Ordinance, 1889, differing from the ordinary practice, has excluded depositions taken in China from being received in evidence, and there can be little doubt that, in some cases, Chinese criminals who have fled to this Colony have escaped extradition owing to the expense and difficulty of procuring the attendance in Hongkong of witnesses from China to prove every technical point required to be proved by the English Law of Evidence. Now, while it is import- aut to provide against any abuse of the reception of deposi- tions in evidence, there is no reason why Chinese, who commit extradition,crimes in China, should be encouraged immediately to betake themselves to Hongkong, by the comparative immunity they enjoy in this Colony, owing to the expense and difficulty of obtaining the proof requisite to obtain their extradition. The matter has formed the subject of correspondence with the British Consul and has been carefully considered not only in the Colony but by the Authorities in England. It is clear that depositions should be received, if proper safeguards can be provided against abuse. The safeguards provided by the Ordinance are as follows:-
(1.) Depositions will be received only in certain cases, namely, in those of the serious crimes specially, enumerated in the Ordinance.
(2.) The depositions must be taken in the presence of the British Consul or bis deputy in the Consular Service, and his certificate, as mentioned in the Ordinance, must accompany them. This ought to secure their bona fides as well as some regard for the elementary principles of English evidence in such documents.
(3.) Depositions will not be admitted where the accused has resided more than six months in this Colony. This will ensure the due protection of Chinese residents in Hongkong, while it will facilitate the extradition of offenders who fly to this Colony fresh from the commission of crimes of violence in China, and swell the ranks of our criminal classes. The Ordinance is intended to give the new system a fair trial and if, after some experience of its working, it is found that even the limited admission of depositions just described leads to abuses, it will be quite possible to repeal the Ordinance the principles of which have met the approval of the Authorities in England.
W. MEIGH Goodman,
Attorney General,
899
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.